Merkel: ‘Repatriation’

Angela Merkel has reportedly reversed her previous ‘we can do it’ stance on taking in multitudes of ‘refugees.’ Now she says ‘Repatriation, repatriation, and more repatriation‘ is the most important thing.

Steve Sailer and commenters discuss it here.

Does she mean it? Did she mean it several years ago when she said that “multiculturalism is a failure“? Actions, remember, speak louder than words, especially when the words are coming from a politician. Remember that there was a chorus of globalist politicians back in 2011 saying, almost word-for-word, what Merkel said. Did they all have some kind of simultaneous, coincidental epiphany? Or was it orchestrated, calculated, for effect? Gee, what do you think? Oddly enough, as soon as the words were out of their mouths, it was back to business as usual.

Of course if you read the fine print back then, when they started parroting these scripted statements for the benefit of us rubes, they were not conceding that multiculturalism was wrong and destructive, but that what was needed was more ‘integration and assimilation’ of the foreigners.

Sarkozy’s statement comes after Prime Minister Mr Cameron said last week that public money should not be handed to ethnic groups who did not share British values.

He called for an end to the ‘passive tolerance’ of divided communities and said members of all faiths must integrate into wider society and accept core values.”

‘Integration, integration, and more integration’ were the magic words back in 2011. The fact that things have only worsened since then has never caused the globalist politicians to change course, not really. And yet, people are easily gulled by them into believing that they mean it when they make some forked-tongued statement that sounds good to the uncritical listener. Even Marine Le Pen was fooled, apparently:

[David Cameron’s] remarks were praised by the leader of the French National Front Marine Le Pen, who said Mr Cameron’s views proved that he supported her far right-wing party’s ideals.

She said: ‘I sense an evolution at European level, even in classic governments. I can only congratulate him.’ “

I think it’s best to hold the congratulations this time around, pending some evidence that Merkel meant what she said. Likewise with other pols. Watch what they do, not what they say.

Italy ferries in 10,000 invaders

A while ago I blogged about the news (via the Reference Frame blog) that the Italian navy was purposefully picking up ‘migrants’ in the Mediterranean — only 13  miles off the Libyan coast. How’s that for service?

Now, the New Observer Online is reporting the story as well, with new details.

I mean, rescuing them out of the water is questionable enough, at least if they are to be brought to Italy instead of sent back, but deliberately going to fetch them? Obviously there is intention at work here, not happenstance.

10,000 in 2 days is a lot of people; imagine if this is a trend. Imagine the results if the numbers continue to increase.

It’s bad form to rub it in, but I’ve heard many Italian-Americans boast that Italy would never end up like France or Britain, swamped by hostile ‘migrants’ because the Italians are tough and not the least bit politically correct. Well, they may be basing that belief on the behavior of some Italian-Americans, such as the urban Italian-Americans of the past. But it definitely appears that the Italian politicians are globalist one-world fanatics like the rest of their class in Europe and the West generally. And if the average Italian citizen is not happy with this state of affairs it seems they are not making much of a fuss about it. But then again, neither is the average American.

When I posted the link to the blog where I first read of this bizarre ferry service, I had one comment, from someone in Europe who insisted that the EU is ‘open and democratic’. I responded in a less than patient way; I no longer have time for such nonsense. Who can honestly, with a straight face, defend the EU is after reading so many stories like this?

Politics replaces tribe, for some

Some ask why I bother to read Free Republic and the like. One answer I give is that it’s a fairly good place to find aggregated news stories that are of interest to me. (If anyone can recommend another that would serve this function, I’m open to suggestions.)

I also read there because I used to believe, based on some signs that I observed, that some of the “conservatives” there were potential converts or allies. Less and less do I think so. After rapidly worsening scenarios involving mass immigration and racial tensions over the last couple of decades, if these people haven’t ‘gotten it’ by now, they likely never will. In fact, for many of them, it seems they have dug in their heels and become more politically correct and deluded, somehow, because of what has been happening. It is as if denial has become stubbornly entrenched among some White folk. It is their way of plugging their ears and reciting the propaganda to shut out the truth. May God help these lost souls.

One example: a news story reports that Quanell X, (born Quanell Evans), a ‘black activist’ has endorsed Donald Trump. And this is one response:

Blacks aren’t our “enemies”. Blacks, and Hispanics and Asians and whomever want for themselves and their families the same things “we” want: peace, safety, jobs, good schools, to be left alone to pursue our dreams with the talents that God endowed us with…..and more.

“Thugs” do not represent the average American Black person any more than Klansmen or NAZIs represent White Americans.”

Or this:

Add that to the list of things I’d never thought I’d see. Civic nationalism has a broad appeal.”

One commenter notes that blacks have been angry at Democrats for ”failing them for 54 years”. The commenter thinks they have a right to be angry, the implication being that yes, Democrats have ”failed” blacks. Right, just as schools keep ”failing” blacks and the ”justice system” has ”failed” blacks. That is, none of these institutions have done enough to free blacks from personal responsibility or to coddle and cater to them.

But the part about blacks like Quanell X possibly turning to Republicans in a fit of pique against the insufficiently servile Democrats makes sense. In other words, they are saying ‘the Republicans may make us a better offer, and unless you raise their bid, we won’t vote for you. You don’t want to lose our valuable votes, do you? Or be called ”racist”, do you?

It’s the same with the ever-elusive Hispanic vote. The country club GOP types, and the ‘Main Street’ GOP, think we should win over the Hispanics by wooing them and flattering them, making concessions to them — little things like amnesty. And of course the Hispanics like to flirt with both sides, like a vain and manipulative woman. If she can have two or more men bidding for her affections, she can get both sides to woo her and make promises and lavish her with gifts. This is how Hispanics and now, blacks play the two parties (really one party) against each other. Will Quanell X and his ilk really vote for Trump? If they do, it will not be because they are ‘natural conservatives’ and suddenly believers in the Free Market and Smaller Government. No; it may only be because they dislike Mexicans more than they dislike Whites at this moment, or more cynically, because they want Trump to side with them against their Mexican rivals. But then I think they are trusting too much if they believe he will close the borders.

And again, their support will come with a price tag. Quid pro quo.

Quanell X’s ‘turf’ is the Houston area, as the article mentions; illegal Latino (and other) immigration — as well as legal immigration — has changed that area immensely, so blacks in that part of Texas do see and feel the results of racial displacement and conflict. Would someone as militantly anti-White as Quanell be willing to ally with Whites against mass immigration? Doubtful; the minority groups may just be jockeying for a greater share of the government handouts and status.

But the ‘conservatives’ who are sold out to the ‘Big Tent’, multicult rainbow America are really diehards, for whom their politics replace natural tribe affinities. And as such they are bound to be used and abused and ultimately very disappointed as things do not move towards a happy, multicultural utopia based, of course, on ”conservative ideology.”



Could it be done today?

The New American has an article on Operation Wetback, the 1950s deportation program, under which some 100,000 illegals were sent back home, and 700,000 more self-deported.

Despite it having been done once, there is always a stubborn opposition mentality saying that it can’t be done. And then of course there is the group (which sometimes overlaps with the ‘can’t be done’ crowd) who say that it shouldn’t be done, because The Children. Breaking up families. The usual rhetoric. And let’s not forget those who argue from economic self-interest, often cheap labor employers, who argue that they can’t get lazy or greedy White Americans to fill their needs, or who argue that it would hurt our economy generally or make our produce and other foods prohibitively expensive.

But mostly people tend to say ”they could do it back then, but it’s different today.” And in part that’s true, because back in 1954 the news media was not so monolithic and so overwhelmingly left-wing and hostile to White Americans as is the case now. Now, the ‘lying press’, the Enemy Media, would work to generate outrage against any large-scale repatriations. Protesters, some professional, hired rent-a-mob types, would be agitating and attempting to provoke incidents. But should we just give up in advance and let that side continue to control events?

Some think so. Take a look at the Free Republic thread on the article. One poster dominates the thread with arguments on why we ‘can’t’ deport people on a mass scale.

Suppose you started tomorrow.

How many years to get through all the court filings to stop the deportation? We simply didn’t have all the various feel good groups willing to file cases to stop/slow down the deportation back when Ike was prez.

How long before the nightly dose of crying mothers and screaming kids on the 5 PM news being separated from their families and carried off to Mexico reaches the point that the people demand that it be stopped?

Then, what you going to do if Mexico refuses to allow the buses/trucks/planes carrying these deportees to enter their country? While the media films the deportees stuck at the border?

9 posted on Monday, August 29, 2016 10:04:53 AM by DugwayDuke (“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”)”


Well, Dugway Duke selected an appropriate tagline, anyway.

So, as one more sensible commenter says sarcastically, we should just give up; if we can’t deport them all, then we can’t deport any.

Dugway Duke and those who think along the same lines seem more concerned about how the left, the bleeding hearts, and the lying media perceive them, more than about what is best for this country and its rightful people. They care more about public opinion, (even as dishonestly represented by the media) than about their posterity. Granted, the word ‘posterity’ is a little abstract for most people; let’s say instead, our children and grandchildren.

But then again, Free Republic is the internet home of a lot of people who are at best, at best, civic nationalists, proposition nationalists, who think that even if America is populated mostly by Central American mestizos, Somalis, Middle Easterners, as long as they speak English, salute the flag, and vote Republican, they are the same as you and me.

As to the discussion about whether ‘self-deportation’, induced by cutting off public benefits to illegals, is more feasible, I see no downside. Illegals, or even legal immigrants and ‘refugees’ should not receive public benefits. In the past, immigrants had to prove they could support themselves, and not become public charges. They had to have sponsors who agreed to assist them if they had no assets to speak of, no marketable skills. But now just about every immigrant family except for the wealthy ones use some form of public assistance. Many well-to-do families with aged parents put the older generation on SSI, which they are entitled to by law, now. So grandma and grandpa, though they have affluent adult children who are employed or in a profession, get SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, EBT, and Section 8. And these are legal immigrants, not illegals.

So yes, end benefits for immigrants, regardless. Republicans often think that no American should receive assistance in any form; I dare them to take such a tough stance with immigrants. They usually don’t. They reserve the resentment for their own, sad to say.

But having benefits taken away may or may not cause the immigrants to self-deport. Why? Because many do work, but ‘under the table,’ paid in cash by Americans who don’t want to pay more to a fellow American to care for their children, or for their aged parents, or to do their yard work and home repairs. True, you don’t get value for money when you hire cheap foreign domestic help. Children are not as well cared-for, and they may grow up speaking broken English if left with foreign “nannies”. Home maintenance jobs are often ineptly or carelessly done.

It all comes at a cost, yet Americans continue to hire illegals. How can we stop this, when it’s going on covertly to some degree?

And then there are plenty of illegals involved in some way with the drug cartel activities, even in my town. There are illegals who are involved in property crimes as well as more sophisticated schemes connected with immigration: human trafficking, identity theft, forging documents, and so on. We all know this. And this is the source of income for many illegals who are not getting social service assistance. If welfare, SSI and all the rest were the only enticement or their only source of sustenance — but that’s not the case.

Then, too, there is the fact that many, many illegal alien criminals were deported and yet they returned, multiple times. The illegal who killed Kate Steinle in the infamous San Francisco shooting incident is but one example of many. Another was Rafael Resendez-Ramirez, the serial ‘railway murderer’ of some years ago. Our ridiculously porous borders are not serving their purpose.

So then must we resign ourselves to this intolerable situation because of the bad press that would accompany any efforts at fixing the problem? I have no easy answers, no magic fix. And if we wait until the majority comes to a consensus about this, we will be lost for sure. What I will say is that political solutions, at least in a ”democracy” with a sorely divided electorate, will likely never be the answer.

From 2013

I’ve spent more time than usual, this past week, in searching through many blogs looking for something elusive; I suppose I am looking for other views that are somewhat on my wavelength, and seeming not to find them. I think that of the blogs I used to read, which are no longer there, I miss the Bad Eagle blog the most. Why? I didn’t always agree with all that he wrote, as I rarely agree 100 per cent with anyone. Some of the subjects on which he wrote were a little esoteric for me, but when he wrote as an ethnopatriot he wrote some very good pieces.

[Maybe it’s not ‘the thing’ to praise an American Indian, but if many on the ‘pro-White’ side can laud Thomas Sowell or certain (((other))) bloggers, then I can cite Bad Eagle.]

Those of you who remember the late Dr. David Yeagley, aka ‘Bad Eagle’, know that he was a Comanche Indian (though his father was White) and he was not in any way hostile to White Americans, not given to striking the ‘victim’ pose. He was very friendly to White ethnopatriotism/ethnonationalism. Most Americans are only familiar with the grandstanding ‘professional Indians’, the ones who denounce Columbus as a ‘genocidalist’ every October. Yeagley called these ‘campus Indians’, because in general it is only the university-educated Indians who become radicalized and militant. Yeagley was an academic by profession, yet he was that rare exception, a non-liberal academic.

I came across this article of his from 2013; in it he asks the pertinent question:

Has the White Man Gone Soft?

He is not asking the question in a hostile way; quite the contrary. He is exhorting Whites and trying to encourage a resolute response to what is happening to our country and to the West. I recommend reading it, and the comments — though I will warn that the first comment may not be palatable to some (because of the link  it contains).

Nevertheless we need a little exhortation now.

Déjà vu

Some quotes:

”We have to win the presidency. The way you win the presidency is to have practical plans. What we need to do is allow people to earn legal status where they pay a fine, where they work, where they don’t commit crimes, where they learn English, and over a period of time, they earn legal status. That’s the proper path. “


[…]” And there should be a path to earned legal status for those that are here. Not amnesty, earned legal status, which means you pay a fine and do many things over an extended period of time.”

“I know there’s disagreement here,” acknowledging boos that came from the right wing crowd. “I feel your pain. But there is no plan to deport 11 million people,[…]We should give them a path for legal status where they work, they don’t get government benefits, where they learn English.”

And though he prioritized security along the nation’s border, he believed the GOP could also broker an agreement on other reform possibilities. “Let’s do it. Let’s control the border[…]There’s nothing wrong with that. There’s nothing that holds back the Republicans from putting a comprehensive plan in place to do it.”

“Having a solution to the fact that we have all of these young people–many of whom are making great contributions, don’t have a connection to their parents’ former country–yeah, of course I’m for it. “


“And for the 11.5 million who are here illegally, if they’ve not committed a crime since they’ve been here, I would give them a path to legalization where they pay a fine, back taxes, delay in any kind of benefits they get. I think is a reasonable approach, but not a path to citizenship.

“My position has not changed. The idea that we’re going to go into communities and yank people out of their homes and leave their kids on the porch crying, that’s not what we’re going to do. That’s — that’s just — that’s more promises that will never happen, and the people will become more cynical.”

Question: who said the above?


The ‘Lancaster Plan’ — is it real?

At Morgoth’s Review, a commenter links to a piece describing the idea of something called the Lancaster Plan, ostensibly something put together by the British government in conjunction with Islamic leaders. The source of this information is this piece at The New English Review.

The writer describes a weekend party at a friend’s house, at which an acquaintance, apparently someone ‘in the know’, described how the government has a plan in place to avoid the kind of terrorism that has happened in France and other European locales.

“He stated quite plainly that the situation in Britain would not be allowed to get out of hand as had happened, in his humble opinion, on the continent. What was more, he asserted, the British government had a Plan to keep the Muslim situation in the U.K. under control, and had had such a Plan in place since it was drawn up under the Blair Labour government back in 2005, after the bombings in London, when it had been known as the Lancaster Plan, named, he explained, after John of Gaunt who, although never king himself, sired the line of English Kings that came after him, kings who kept England together and at the forefront of world developments.

[…]It was simple, he informed us. The Lancaster Plan contained several different provisions that could be brought into play to defuse the threat of Islamic violence in the U.K.

[…]He informed us, with no special tone in his voice, just in a matter-of-fact way, that the first two provisions of the Lancaster Plan had already been activated and were proving to be successful. Further provisions could be activated when necessary and in that way Muslim violence in Britain could be contained or minimised, or maybe even staved off indefinitely if the plan came to be implemented in its entirety.

[…]He carefully explained to us the two stages that he’d just mentioned. The first stage was, so he said, the careful use of legislation to make any criticism of Islam, or Muslims, almost impossible. Many in government, he stated, were a little upset that in order to do that they had also made it legally very difficult to criticise other faiths such as Christianity or Hinduism, but their concerns about this had dissipated over recent years as it had become obvious that the police and the judiciary simply treated any criticism of a faith other than Islam, or criticism of a believer other than a Muslim, as being far less serious than criticism of Islam itself or of Muslims. The careful positioning by many NGOs, and left-wing thinkers, of criticism of Islam and Muslims as racist had not been entirely co-incidental either, so he averred, but had been initiated and encouraged by government officials in furtherance of the first stage of the Lancaster Plan.”

The rest can be read at the link.

Morgoth himself expresses disbelief of the story. It’s true that some anonymous person at a party is the source of the information, and that is hardly enough for us to accept it uncritically. And it’s sensible to have some healthy skepticism in this age of disinformation. I am not familiar with the writer of the piece who relays this information to us, and the anonymous source could be a disinfo agent. It does happen that ‘our’ governments deliberately sow disinformation both to demoralize us and to keep us confused. Disinformation has many possible uses.

However, in this age of unprecedented levels of madness on the part of those supposedly ‘in charge’, it seems almost nothing is too bizarre to be true. Many of us still don’t accept that the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan is true, though we see enough evidence to make it believable. And this alleged Lancaster Plan sounds like the kind of collaboration and capitulation which we can see taking place in all Western countries.

So can we say categorically that it isn’t true?

We’ve all read the saying, “To learn who rules over you, find out whom you are not allowed to criticize.” There are a number of protected groups who are held to be immune to criticism, among them blacks, gays, and especially Jews. In fact, though, these groups are not equal in their immunity from criticism; for example people can and do criticize the first two groups without fearing arrest or prosecution, in most cases, but to question the Holocaust can bring arrest and/or prison time, if convicted, and has resulted in imprisonment in some European countries and Canada. But as of now, it is only the criticism of Islam that has led to people being arrested or questioned in some European countries, in the wake of the refugee onslaught and recent terror attacks. Social media like Twitter, to their great discredit, have become an arm of governments in going after people who mildly criticized Islam or the sainted ‘refugees.’

So why is it that Islam is suddenly more of a sacred cow than the other protected groups, even more protected by Western governments than blacks or Jews or gays?

Recently some of us have wondered aloud, in the real world, if in fact ‘our’ governments have in fact capitulated to Islam and agreed to some kind of dhimmi-like status and/or ‘jizya’ in exchange for being allowed to keep their outward power as some kind of puppet rulers or collaborationist regimes? Why else would ‘our’ leaders be so deferential and servile towards people who clearly see themselves as our enemies and who boast of one day conquering us and our lands?

I realize that some people on the right abhor neocons and counter-jihadists, both of whom they regard (maybe rightly) as serving Jewish interests. I personally got fed up with the neocon warmongering many years ago, and soon saw that the counterjihad is a dead-end, ultimately bound by its own version of PC.

However that does not mean we should blind ourselves to the reality of Islam, nor should we understimate the perfidy and machinations of the Western leadership.

Harvard Republican Club rejects Trump

I see that the Harvard Republican Club has refused to endorse Donald Trump. According to their own statement, this is the first time in 128 years that they have rejected the Republican nominee for the presidency.

The statement spells out their reasons for taking this unprecedented position.

Donald Trump holds views that are antithetical to our values not only as Republicans, but as Americans. The rhetoric he espouses –from racist slander to misogynistic taunts– is not consistent with our conservative principles, and his repeated mocking of the disabled and belittling of the sacrifices made by prisoners of war, Gold Star families, and Purple Heart recipients is not only bad politics, but absurdly cruel.”

There’s a lot of hyperventilating exaggeration here, all laced with political correctness or ‘virtue signalling’, if you prefer.

Our” values? “our” conservative principles? What universe do these self-important adolescents inhabit? Not mine, and not the same universe as all previous generations of Americans.

Some of the comments online about this Republican Club statement imply that the members of this Club are ‘elitists’, probably old-line WASPs, because everyone knows that is who goes to Hahvahd, right? Well, maybe not. Harvard, like just about every university in this corrupt society, courts diversity. They have many special fellowship and scholarship programs set up specifically for ‘diversity’ of one sort or another, probably everything from LGBTQ-whatever to immigrants, (especially illegal immigrants), for Womyn, for American Indians. I think the percentages of old-stock Americans, especially WASPs, at Harvard are dwindling all the time.

The statement by the Club is a collective one, with no spokesman or leader named or quoted. From a 2013 list of some members’ names it appears that it’s the usual ‘diverse’ and multicultural cast of characters, as is found on just about every campus in this country, thanks to mandatory diversity admissions. For example, a Jewish name, a Chinese name, a Hindu name, and a couple of American-sounding names that may or may not belong to White students. In other words, this statement is not coming from an all-White ‘elite’ club as some are insinuating.

Harvard is not what it used to be.  In fact, every American institution, even those going back to colonial days like Harvard, is not what it started out to be, nor even what it was 30 years (or less) in the past.

This ritual denunciation of Donald Trump is just what would be expected, considering the source. It is not an indication of anything except the callow opinions of indoctrinated millennials in a very left-wing institution.

The left’s ‘human shields’

For a while I didn’t care to read Ann Coulter’s commentaries; maybe I associated her with the other Fox News ‘pundits’. Needless to say I tuned out Fox News years ago, when it was more than obvious that they are not conservative or right-wing, much less pro-White, even implicitly.

But I think she makes a very good analogy in this piece about the Khan controversy.

Khizr Khan, the Muslim “Gold Star Father” who harangued Americans at the Democratic National Convention, with a mute, hijab-wearing wife at his side, is just another in a long string of human shields liberals send out to defend their heinous policies.

Human shields. Yes, that’s exactly the purpose they serve. Just as in the Moslem world they notoriously use children as human shields, counting on the European Christian tradition of chivalry to ensure that our side holds their fire. Surely nobody will criticize the Khans; after all their son ”died a hero”, supposedly shielding ‘his’ soldiers, our guys. Mr. and Mrs. Khan are ‘Gold Star Parents’ who are thus immune from any criticism, and anybody who dares question them or their agenda would automatically be branded as heartless and/or unpatriotic. And the people who are most susceptible to this kind of approach are pro-military Republicans.

To me it just seems as if the Khans are being used in much the same way as Cindy Sheehan, who apparently was funded to travel all over this country making a nuisance of herself because of her son’s death in the Iraq war. After Sheehan was no longer useful to the Democrats, it appeared they dropped her, because she was no longer all over the media.

The Khans, however, present a better image for the left to exploit; they are Moslem, they are immigrants, they are non-white, and they claim to be patriotic ‘Americans’, with Mr. Khan brandishing his pocket-size Constitution which he purportedly carries with him. But just look at the expression on his face in that famous shot of him and his silent wife at the podium. What anger; what contempt. These are not exactly sympathetic characters with their surly attitudes and their evident lack of adaptation to this country.

I am dismayed by the numbers of articles and blog comments by ‘conservatives’ who flatly state that the Khans’ son ‘was a hero’, and that the Khans, being Gold Star  parents should be honored. But being utterly honest, is everyone killed on active duty automatically a ‘hero’? It seems to me that we have so devalued that word by applying it too inclusively that we have essentially stripped it of its original meaning. It used to be reserved for people who showed extraordinary bravery in dire circumstances, or people who did selfless, even self-sacrificing things for the greater good, or to save innocent lives. From what I have read of the death of the Khans’ son, it is not at all  clear that this definition fits him.

Many Republicans objected when the young female soldier, Jessica Lynch, was made out to be a heroine (PC version: ‘hero’, because ‘heroine’ is a sexist term) by being ambushed and taken captive. She was raked over the coals by some who said she did not deserve to be called heroic — including raving lesbian leftie Rachel Maddow. I believe women should not be in combat, and that the co-ed military is disastrous for all involved, But Lynch did not make herself out to be a hero; the PC military apparently did so, probably to bolster the case for female ‘equality’ in the military. It may be that this Khan case is also likewise a result of the politically correct military promoting the idea of ‘patriotic Muslims’ fighting alongside us, etc.

I don’t know how effective this blatant propaganda effort has been among average voters; I would imagine that only the most zealous ideologues are buying it. I do hope that further information will come out about the Khans We already know he has influential associates, so he is not a poor struggling immigrant, and that his business is involved with bringing more Moslem immigrants to this country, and that he has a financial incentive to do so as well as an ethnocentric bias towards it. Not to mention that his religion advocates for Moslems immigrating en masse into infidel countries, and that his religion recommends lying as a tactic to advance Islam.

So the Khans are being exploited by the left, but let’s not make them out to be hapless victims thereby; they are also doing some exploiting of their own.



Italy ferrying immigrants to Europe?

According to blogger at The Reference Frame, news sources say that Italy is actually sending ships to Libya, where they are picking up people from boats near the North African coast, and bringing them to Italy. ‘Rescuing’ is the word being used to describe this, and most of us would assume that meant they were picking up people from the waters after their boats or rafts sank. Not so, apparently:

Because they can’t arrive through the Balkans, the importance of the Italian route for the illegal immigrants went up. Hours ago, the media told us that

“Italy says 6,000 migrants saved, 2 drowned in 4 days”
The report – which, according to the comment sections on Czech news servers, has totally shocked the Czech public – says that Italy’s navy is picking the people from boats directly near the beaches of Libya. In a sane world, the navy would be transferring the illegal immigrants from Europe back to Africa.

But the navy under the Italian social democrats is doing exactly the opposite: they are sending Italian ships to kidnap Africans and bring them to Europe.”

I encourage you to read the rest at the link.

As jaded as I sometimes become with these stories about our ‘elites’ and their bizarre machinations, this has me stunned, though it probably shouldn’t. Apparently they can’t replace Europeans and White populations everywhere fast enough, these disciples of Coudenhove-Kalergi. They have to come up with these schemes to speed things up.

And yet that’s not all. According to a commenter ‘Fer137’ on the article

There are also several Spanish frigates “rescuing” in Libya, and probably more countries. These are EU and NATO operations.……
At the height of impudence they advertised it as
“ cut lines of international human trafficking”
When in reality have become key partners. Facilitating the work of traffickers, reducing its operating costs, providing more comfortable and safe military boats for most of the trip. I have understood that just make a phone call from the coast of Libya to an NGO to go a military boat to “rescue”.

In a way we have a kind of similar action by ‘our’ government; remember a couple of summers ago when we read of the sudden surge of ”unaccompanied minors” at our Southern border? They were children, supposedly (though some suspiciously mature-looking) who needed to be ”escorted” to safety. We couldn’t turn poor orphaned children back, could we? It was a humanitarian crisis, so the feds brought these ‘children’ stateside and provided shelters, foster homes, and all kinds of assistance.

Just helping out the human traffickers, I suppose.

But this story from Europe deserves more exposure than it has gotten; I haven’t seen mention of it anywhere, and few eyes will see it on my blog. Bloggers, if anyone is reading this, you may want to check out this story. Especially if you are fluent in a European language and read European media where this story may (or may not) be reported.