The Reality of Obama’s Opaque Foreign Policy

Resistance in Italy to unlimited mass migration is being spearheaded by the Lega Nord [Northern League], the secessionist party in the northern provinces of Italy. This anti-immigration sentiment is spreading to the rest of Italy, as parties sympathetic to and allied with Lega Nord form in the rest of Italy.

While Lega Nord used to be considered “extreme right” by many Italians, that sentiment is changing rapidly as the country’s infrastructure becomes overwhelmed. But this is Italy after all. They are willing to say the unsayable more quickly than their cohorts in Northern Europe.

From The Telegraph today comes a report about the “revolt” against the immigrant “invasion” that stands further back to view the larger picture I mentioned in my post yesterday. Surprisingly they are admitting this massive influx is an invasion, but they take back the truth by putting scare quotes around the grim reality of those they term merely ‘migrants’. [the emphases are mine, not in the original]:

Italians are in growing revolt against the number of migrants arriving on their shores, with more than 10,000 people rescued from the Mediterranean in the past week alone.

The huge influx of asylum seekers from the Middle East and Africa is putting an intolerable strain on a country that has been in recession for the past five years.

Conservative politicians called this week for boatloads of refugees to be sent back to Libya, while the system of migrant reception centres is on the verge of collapse.


Conservative politicians say the policy of rescuing migrants at sea only encourages people trafficking by Libyan gangs.


“The system is close to collapse,” said Claudio Palomba, the prefect of Rimini, on the Adriatic coast, and the president of the national union of prefects. “We’re only in April and I don’t know if the system will be able to cope if the number of arrivals keeps up at this pace.”

Matteo Salvini, the head of the Northern League and a rising star of the Italian Right, has called on his supporters to block moves to accommodate any more migrants.

“I ask the League’s governors, mayors, assessors and councillors to say no, with every means, to every new arrival. The League is ready to occupy every hotel, hostel, school or barracks intended for the alleged refugees,” he wrote on his Facebook account this week.

As boatloads of refugees continue to make the dangerous crossing from Libya, merchant vessels in the Mediterranean complained that they were being called to help with rescues.

Italy terminated its search and rescue operation, Mare Nostrum, in October and it has been replaced by a much smaller operation run by Frontex, the EU’s border control agency, which has to rely on the assistance of merchant ships.


“The situation is becoming unsustainable,” Mario Mattioli, the owner of [a] tug boat, told La Repubblica on Thursday. “Taking part in rescues is no longer unusual – it has become routine.

“Like other merchant ships we are being called on to help out on a daily basis, but our crews are not trained to deal with these operations. We can’t provide medical care or thermal blankets or emergency food.”

There are also security issues for the crews of merchant ships – this week traffickers fired shots into the air from Kalashnikovs in order to force an Italian vessel and an Icelandic coast guard ship to relinquish a wooden boat which had been used to transport migrants from the Libyan coast.

In other words, the smugglers are becoming bolder in demanding their vessels back. This is behavior akin to the pirates off the coast of Somalia. As has occurred before in lawless times, what happens on land is reflected in behaviors on the sea.

Small European nations with any coastline are going to have to develop more counter-aggressive pushback behaviors if they expect to survive.

The long period of emasculated “no-more-war” Europe is over; current events are proving that you can indeed have a war even if you don’t show up for it. The beginning of the end of peace is in Italy, currently under the worst pressure. As it was in the 1930s, economic depression is bringing this to a head sooner rather than later. The difference this time is that the “enemy” against which they must take up arms is not a nation-state, nor is it composed of European natives.

Those whose interest is in maintaining the turmoil and chaos in Europe are not Europeans. One of the prime movers and shakers lives in the White House, where they are even now putting new spikes on the top of the fence to keep people out.

Not only have Obama’s policies in the Middle East and North Africa brought chaos and economic collapse to those places, but he is making common cause with those sowers of discord, the Castro Brothers, while they are still extant and can be used to destabilize South America. Meanwhile America’s own southern borders are becoming a rude fiction.

As I said yesterday in the comments, this man is a product of his momma’s world view. He is fiercely anti-American and anti-European “colonial powers”. Is he deliberately unconscious about the ultimate unintended consequences of his puerile decisions and delusions?

Is Norway ready to rescind its Peace Prize yet?

56 thoughts on “The Reality of Obama’s Opaque Foreign Policy

  1. Best and probably only long term solution is to sink those boats, with all the people in them.
    Videotape the whole thing, take a lot of photographs, and drop prints of those all over northern and central africa in the form of leaflets reading something like “this is what happens to those who try to enter the EU”.

    Won’t ever happen of course. Rather Italy will just put them on trains north with one way tickets paid for by EU taxpayers. And the Telegraph welcomes that, it fits the left wing agenda perfectly to flood the entire EU with muslims who’ll then be readily indoctrinated that to vote leftist is to guarantee permanent free money for as long as they live.

    • Your “solution” is both deadly and frivolous, but then you know that.

      I’m not sure Italy pays them to leave. Rather they vanish, making their way into the richer countries on their own.

      The EU wouldn’t countenance Italy paying the fares for a hundred thousand people traveling into the heart of Europe to take up residence and room.

      • Hardly frivolous. Once word gets out that the open seas are no longer viable to cross into Europe, the attempts will stop. Long term less will die.
        The crossings are made possible because EU policy is that such crossings should not be opposed, this is just the start. Central Africa is having a population boom, there is a growing number of willing men to make such a journey.
        It would be better if the northern nations that provide generous welfare would stop such incentives but that’s not going to happen anytime soon. It may be that places like Italy will have to adopt aggressive measures to stop a real flood of young muslim men into Europe.
        Currently the fence around the Spanish port of Melilla isn’t even electrified. What’s the point in having it if people are allowed to just climb over it?
        This is an invasion, large numbers of aggressive young men who are arriving simply to take resources from the lands they’re entering, who have zero interest in adopting the local ways and who wish to impose their ways on a mostly docile population.
        Europe is turning into a giant doormat.

    • European nations will need to form expeditionary forces to seize and establish bridgeheads in Muslim nations to which the invaders can be deported. It is possible that these bridgeheads will remain under European governance and even become bases for economic and social development (we can dream). This will of course require war, but it will be more just and less savage than some alternatives proposed. Anybody got a better idea?

      • Are you for real, sir? Sentences that begin “X needs to Y” are airy fairy ideas which have not the slightest bearing on reality.

        Have you read no history of Islam at all? Do you not know what they do to “expeditionary forces”? Start with Churchill and work your way through the material…you’ll find out why he had neither like nor trust of Mohammadens.

        Then perhaps you form your own good will mission to ISIS. <- There's your one better idea.

        • I am very serious. I am not talking about conquering any of these nations, nor am I talking about seizing much in the way of land. I am talking about bridgeheads from whence we can deport the invaders. Why not seize, say, 100 square miles of Libyan land as a start. Choose the land wisely, based on natural carrying capacity (water, harbor, etc), because there will be a lot of people camped there, that’s for sure. Better there than Italy. Sure it will cost some money, but the money will just have to be spent. And sure the Muslims will resist but they will be no match for a determined western force that is there to fight and do a job, not bring democracy, liberalism, freedom or whatever. As far as I am concerned there is no Libyan nation and we have no obligation to respect such entity as is called Libya since the inhabitants of said land refuse to police and govern their borders properly.

          What is your idea? You are not advocating that we shoot up the boats and tip the invaders over into the sea, are you?

          • Thanks Daniel H, as I have thought on very similar lines.

            Military and Monetary wise would not be more than the cost expended now and weighing up future costs should be easily balanced out,

            That bridge head should be ruled as by our own military law, and so any trouble makers and family will be removed and not so far to go,

            A safe zone for all , educationalists, health workers and missionaries, where libraries, schools, churches, temples, sorry no mosques, after all it will be only a few kilometres away over ” no man land” where people of that ideology can stay.

            Japan and the Bushideo knights from Shinto was changed.
            Germany and it ideology was smoked out.

            The real difficulty is the consideration being given to Human rights, politically correct, racism, genderization etc.
            Well if the ideology of islam is to go then all the rest should too.

            Live or die, or are lifeboats to be swamped too?

          • What I see is the UN and many linked agencies demanding all governments to contribute land, housing, education, food, tribute, pensions, benefits etc,
            What about your own citizens with all the cry of “poverty” “children need breakfasts in school” etc.

            That is to be taken from the “advantaged citizen” under menaces like first taking the golden egg plus a feather or two ( until well plucked) and eventually much more.

            It reminds me of the adage at sea, you do not go and rescue; if it endangers your ship, crew or passengers. Tough though that decision may be. Other things may be done like laying oil on big waves can help, with luck of the wind and waves.
            Perhaps that is where the “bridgehead” concept may fit in.

            Australia managed to assist the “refugee boats” by putting them in seaworthy life boats and tow them back and with just enough fuel to return to where the set off from.
            Sure much debate and argument in politics to get to that stage.
            The most notable part was the difference in numbers of boats setting out was when the refugees were almost freely allowed to come in, and then a policy of offshore detention camps, where some waited years,, and the boats numbers dwindled, then a change of government changed that formula and a rapid escalation of numbers occurred, to be shut down again with the life boat concepts in the last year or so.

            The boat people were known as “queue jumpers” as Australia was still receiving quota numbers from bonafide refugees that often had waited for years in camps like in Africa and elsewhere.

            To bring immigrants in and to do it well, instead of short changing them and robbing your own.

          • I think that Dymphna’s point is that, when considering starting a war, you need to seriously consider whether the war is in any sense “winnable”. The economic resources of the West are not infinite, their military capacity not insuperable.

            From my perspective, partitioning off an isolated section of your own national territory and using it as a place for the detainment of refugees you cannot justify executing nor realistically integrate is costly and politically unlikely, but militarily possible. Doing the same by seizing control of substantial territory from other nations by means of open warfare is far more costly and far more difficult, militarily.

            The U.S.-led coalition to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein was successful in the original military goal of overwhelming the military and overthrowing the government. But when the mission was expanded to turning Iraq into an enduring bastion of freedom in the Middle East, the war was effectively lost, because the military commitment became interminable.

            Seizing a strip of land, particularly one with desirable characteristics, will not be less costly than invasion to overthrow a government and directly eliminate the capacity for coordinated military resistance. It will become a perpetual war on unfavorable terms, possibly against dozens of nations. Even if the bloodshed is entirely justified (and I am inclined to believe that the current Western governments are incapable of moral clarity and purpose in military deployments), it would be stupid and pointless, better options exist.

            For now, at least. The imminent financial collapse of the Western world means that any system of refugee detainment would have to be revenue positive to continue.

    • Any long term solution absolutely must be consistent with the essential values of Western Civilization. As has been proven time and again, the principle of personal accountability for individual actions is an indispensable element of the foundation of Western Civilization. Any “solution” that relies on fundamentally collectivist measure to punish or reward groups for overall behavior rather than particular individuals for specific actions can only worsen the decline of Western Civilization.

      Yes, collectivist ‘solutions’ are easier to impose. They also are completely pointless in the end, because humans are in point of fact individuals, even when they belong to a community. Indeed, no community can function unless it distinguishes the roles of the individual humans that comprise it based on their personal behavior. The rise and prosperity of Western Civilization has always been a result of overcoming the intellectually lazy tendency to resort to broad generalizations in making particular judgments about individuals. It is true that the world is far too complex for us to conceptualize it without relying on some generalizations, but humans are far too individually unique and particular to ever be correctly managed without seeing them as individuals.

      Detainment of illegal migrants is an obvious and well justified policy. But after detainment a serious effort must be made to ascertain the proper treatment of each individual. It may be that many or most of these migrants should receive nothing more than an offer of bread and water in exchange for a life-time of hard labor if they do not wish to return to their homeland. There are probably a few who should be promptly executed upon identification. On the other hand, there may well be some who risked everything to reach the West because they share certain essential values of Western Civilization, and have a real capacity and desire to contribute to a free and open society.

      Of course, you cannot make these sorts of determinations accurately without detaining and investigating all those who attempt to enter Western nations with no documented history of previous behavior. That in and of itself is a necessary ‘punishment’ for the overt crime of attempting illegal entry into the nations of other peoples.

      • That is vastly over intellectualizing.

        Border fences and guards and natural barriers exist to prevent foreign invaders from entering the homeland. Any individuals deemed worthy of entry make their case at consulates in foreign countries.

        Individuals attempting to go around the visa process suffer the consequences as befit would-be invaders who choose to treat the nation’s laws as a joke. It’s blindingly simple though I don’t intend sarcasm here.

        Presently, it’s Western governments that treat the nation’s laws as a joke and the citizens as cattle to be ignored. So they become a joke in the process as witness Sweden. Swedes don’t know this yet but soon they will be rolling on the floor.

        • I do think that deterrence does play a role in reducing the number of attempted border crossings. And in cases that clearly involve effective hostiles, the military option must remain open, even if this involves some unavoidable degree of collateral damage.

          That said, I think we are addressing the problem of how to respond to boatloads of helpless people, many of whom are simply seeking better economic opportunities and a few of whom are real refugees who share the essential values of Western Civilization. It is true that nations can utterly discard the principles of personal responsibility for personal actions in dealing with this sort of problem. The history of the West attests this abundantly. It also demonstrates that this is not a good way to preserve the values of Western Civilization, which is presumably the entire point of trying to keep out migrants who do not share those values or are actively hostile to them.

          Yes, we should enforce the laws protecting the territorial integrity of Western nations. But one of the essential principles of Western Civilization is balancing the efficient enforcement of the law against the preservation of those values which the law exists to protect. And while I have no answer to the objection that the national values of many nations, particularly as expressed in their political class, have been perverted too far to make any course consistent with Western Civilization political feasible (since this is also my own belief), I believe that the values of Western Civilization do provide clear answers to what should be done even if nobody in power is willing to do it.

          Illegal migration is a crime. But it can be deterred by means which stop well short of indiscriminate murder of helpless innocents simply for being (even literally) in the same boat with avowed but helpless enemies of the West, which would utterly destroy the civilized character of any nation which resorted to it as a strict policy.

          Why does it matter? Simply so that we can say, when rebuilding, that those who abandoned the defense of Western Civilization did have choices which could have preserved it. Believe me, those who seek the overthrow of the West, whatever their alternative ideology, fully intend to blame the values of Western Civilization (rather than the intentional abandonment of those values) for the downfall of the West. We must not accept this narrative, because it is utterly false.

          Even those working to overthrow Western Civilization must be, at some level, fully cognizant that a determined reliance on those values to shape policy could still save the West. They know, in their secret heart, the arguments that they really fear reaching the public. They may already have sufficient hold over the public institutions of Western nations to ensure that those arguments do not reach the majority. But they do respond aggressively to anything that smacks of a practical, effective plan to preserve Western Civilization by practicing the virtues that define it.

          • Better they [redacted]-> rot where they live than set foot on [our] land.

            ADMIN: Bad karma to go past the bounds of civility in what you call down on others. Though we realize the duress under which you speak.

          • My suggestion for dealing with the stress of watching civilization fall apart is to do something sensible but forbidden involving the manufacture or modification of militarily useful devices. Naturally, you should keep it secret that you are doing such a thing until you have sufficient preparations to make any action by the authorities against you sufficiently costly. Or you can just fiddle about learning skills but not doing anything technically prohibited, and keep it secret that you are not violating the absurd and illegitimate edicts of the traitors in power…that suggestion would probably be considered more ‘civil’.

            But the fact is that, with the multiplication of regulations to which we are all supposedly subject, all of us probably commit three or more felonies a day. I really don’t see any reason not to make them count. Then again, saying so is probably technically a felony. But I wonder how eager the ‘authorities’ are to enforce their edicts on me now that I’ve had some more time to prepare for them.

          • Murder is a distraction. Our enemies would have us think that our “values” prevent us from doing anything but meekly turn the navy into a taxi service. Or the border into a swirl of mist.

            However, our values, in fact, celebrate self defense and there is no reason why we need go much further than firm, clear warnings, no “rescue” of those who ignore them, towing invaders to the nearest non-European land at first, and then using force on those still foolish enough to ignore us.

            Presently, it’s smart and penalty less to ignore Western governments, as befits the small cats that they are. The message that Westerners are no longer acting like fools and weaklings will spread instantly.

            The invaders intend to subjugate us. We are not obliged to pretend otherwise, though we do, of course.

      • Hello chiu,

        I have a bit more idea where you’re coming from.

        I think the idea of permanent detainment and confinement at hard labor for marginal refugees is untenable. You’ll have a situation like that of the “Palestinian” refugees, where you have vast confined camps where the people have nothing to do but breed and become radicalized. As time goes on, they become more numerous, with the children literally guilty of no crime at all, but as potentially disruptive and dangerous as their parents who committed the crime of illegal immigration.

        You have to get rid of unwanted immigrants. They can’t stay on your territory. You’re building up a huge pressure that is an existential threat to your nation.

        During the Communist era, refugees from the Soviet Union were likely to be Christians, or Jews, or people devoted to freedom and individual liberties. That’s why they were refugees, and by and large were a net benefit to their host societies, when not spies. They also tended to be people with a productive capability.

        Now, you have the economic, or tribal refugees. They are fleeing the economic consequences of low-IQ populations, combined with tribal attitudes. Or, you have Muslim refugees, either Shia fleeing from Sunnis, or Sunnis fleeing from Shias, but all of them supporting jihad and sharia law. In all cases, the refugees will recreate the exact conditions they fled from. And they will push the boundaries of their host countries, up to and including suicide or murder within confinement.

        In war, you do not have the luxury of distinguishing individuals. Allied bombers threatened Anne Frank as much as they threatened the quisling Dutch policeman who arrested her or the Nazi scum who caused her death.

        Imagine hoards of immigrants who destroy their identity papers, pile on dangerous ships, and inundate your shores. Their real country of origin won’t accept them back and no other country wants them. What do you do with them? And, if you keep them in your country under any circumstances, they will eventually blow up your society.

        Any way you handle them, if you protect your own society, will probably result in the death of most of the refugees, even if it is the Australian method of towing them to a few miles offshore of where you think they are from. The blood is not on your hands, but it’s just as bloody.

        The major

          • You mean Northern Europe isn’t enough??

            Here’s some interesting news about Norway’s decision to deport “radicalized” impots:


            The Muslim population of Europe is growing at a rapid clip, and the criminal and radical elements within that population are stealthily “conquering” land, one neighborhood, town, and city at a time.

            But the people of Europe have begun to push back against this cultural encroachment, with some countries taking steps to control and downsize their Muslim populations.

            Norway is one of those countries, and they began deporting radical and criminal Muslims back from whence they came last year.

            Amazingly, they have seen their violent crime rate drop by nearly 1/3rd since they began deportations in earnest last fall.

            In September of last year, Norway deported a record 763 people, only to top that record just one month later, when they deported another 824 people in October.

            According to the Young Conservatives, this is likely due to a change in “portfolio priorities,” as well as an easing of the requirements for sending people back to Afghanistan and Nigeria, among other countries.

            Norway had set a goal of just over 7,000 deportations for 2014, and had nearly reached their goal by the end of October, with at least 5, 876 deported at that time.

            Final deportation numbers for the year are not yet available, but considering the rate at which Norway was deporting criminal and radical Muslims, it is probably a safe assumption that the goal was reached.

            Norway was rich enough not to need the EU. So EUorpeans better not get any ideas cuz Brussels ain’t gonna let y’all do this. However, Italy may break ranks. Desperation breeds new possibilities.

        • Hard labor camps necessarily involve segregation by sex and age. In that situation, you don’t have natural growth and radicalization of the inmates.

          Also, the fact of age and sex segregation tends to further increase the deterrence effect of the camps, making it more likely that those inmates unwilling or unable to integrate to Western Civilization will opt for deportation, and that others with the same fundamental unsuitability for legal immigration will opt against taking a dangerous boat trip to a distinct non-vacation.

          I also recommend that private contractors be put in charge of overseeing the labor performed. I realize that this may smack of the practice of slavery under fascism, which is why I stress that it is essential that deportation always remain an option for everyone that is not duly convicted of a capital offense. It is also important that integration oriented education be available (but not mandatory) for anyone that is seriously trying to integrate. This education would be in addition to hard labor service, not in lieu, but younger migrants (and women) would necessarily have different hard labor quotas than adult men.

          Implementing such a system is politically difficult in the current climate, and certainly will not be adopted by those currently in power, as it has significant potential to actually resolve the problem of illegal immigration, which is absolutely not what the globalist elitists desire. But it IS possible, schemes that were far more costly and less humane have been successfully implemented in the past.

          • It is important to focus on the one point that matters — it was a lunatic AND suicidal policy to allow third-world immigration to Western countries. Also, it is intended as a vicious attack on Western countries.

            This policy must be rescinded and all immigrants returned to their real homes. Anything less will result in paralyzing debates about who “really” wants to integrate and who’s a “moderate” Muslim. This just delays necessary civilization-saving measures.

            If all cultures are the same, expelled foreigners will benefit their homelands just as they do ours. Cash payments can continue for a few years. Immigrants with businesses, education, and/or 10 years of no welfare benefits AND who denounce forever the Koran, shariah, and Mohammed as deceiver and murderer may make application for relief from expulsion. Points for having one wife and unmutilated daughters can also be awarded.

            The Chinese speak of “throw open the door and look at the mountain.” The above is that mountain.

          • Actually, one point matters a bit more than the fact that mass immigration is intended as a vicious attack on Western countries.

            The point that matters more is WHO intended it. Yes, it’s true that many of the migrants do intend their movement as a form of invasion for the purpose of overthrowing the West. But they could not have accomplished this by themselves.

            If you want to avoid losing a sword-fight, you may have to start by deflecting the opponent’s blade so it doesn’t kill you…but at some point you have to stop just striking at the blade and focus on the opponent.

            And when you’re already so badly wounded that you’ve essentially lost the power to effectively deflect any blows? Then you are running out of time to strike a true blow against the real enemy.

            Culture conservatives in the past did win many, many political battles against mass immigration…but mass immigration was never the real foe. Nor is it the real point of reintroducing the idea of personal responsibility for individual actions. We may be able to introduce it to the immigration debate…but it is a general principle which must be applied everywhere in the end if Western Civilization is to be saved.

            Well, perhaps letting that cat out of the bag has doomed my little scheme to use a ‘balanced and sensible’ approach to immigration as a wedge to reintroduce the idea of personal accountability to the West. Then again, perhaps I have a backup scheme, which I just happen to not like as much despite it being basically…inevitable.

  2. Has anyone ever thought of taking out the ships before they are loaded with passengers? The Ottomans once boasted that Westerners couldn’t float a plank in the Mediterranean. Perhaps that’s the approach for us to take here. Put ships and small boats in harbors under constant drone surveillance. Then, if large groups of people are seen approaching nearby, send the craft to the bottom before they load to sail. Problem solved: no drownings, no need for expensive rescue operations, no profits for smugglers, no inflated welfare rolls, and no immigrants.

    While some might object that this would be an act of war, I would submit that we are already effectively at war with these “countries.” They – and a series of non-state actors therein – commit acts of either omission or commission against us by allowing their territories to be used in ways that are harmful to the West. Besides, how is the above any worse than what we just did in Libya?

    • Certainly, condemning and scuttling vessels that have been seized as a result of criminal activity and cannot economically be refurbished to proper safety and hygiene standards would seem to be a basic necessity of proper enforcement activity.

      Preemptive action to destroy vessels that may be used in criminal activity is not entirely unreasonable in all circumstances. However, it is important to realize at the outset that any such program cannot be restricted to vessels which are imminent threats. In war, one must destroy all military assets of the enemy whenever it is most economical to do so, and destroying the vessels prior to use in criminal activity is an act of war. Thus, one should commit to destroy absolutely any vessel available to the enemy. To do otherwise is to impose unnecessary operational costs and encourage the enemy to exploit your unwillingness to attack when it is militarily expedient.

  3. I fail to understand why the Italians are not towing this flotsam back to Africa. Why do they all have to be landed in Europe? In addition, the last report I read was of muslims throwing Christians overboard; and that information tells you all you need to know about the satan followers who are swamping Europe.

    • What do you fail to understand about why the UK and especially England is not sending its own Muslim “immigrants” back to wherever. When you have cut that Gordian knot, we could perhaps discuss Italy’s failures to tow the “flotsam” back to Africa – and they would be killed for trying.

      Why in heaven’s name did the English police let the grooming gangs operate with impunity for a dozen years? Why didn’t England even punish its own – Saville – since his behaviors were evidently common knowledge?

      None of these things happened all at once, though they begin to come to fruition all at the same time.

      England has produced ONE brave man: Tommy Robinson. And he has been used as an example of what will happen to the rest of y’all should you try anything similar.

      I fail to understand why you fail to understand what is obvious: a top-down moral rot is met in the middle by a huge cohort of hollowed-out welfare recipients who simply want “their share” though they contribute nothing toward everyone else getting THEIR fair share.They are exquisitely tuned to any scintilla of “injustice” aimed at them.

      And if you think the current situation in England wasn’t planned, I have a bridge to sell you.

      • I’ve been wondering about the reason for the dearth of terrorist attacks on European soil, and I don’t think it’s because domestic security services in the various countries are effective at rooting out the terrorists before they can strike. Is it possible that the various governments have reached an informal understanding with their muslim populations that the authorities will continue to permit virtually unfettered muslim immigration, pursue muslim-friendly policies , and refrain from enforcing the law against muslim law-breakers (such as in Rotherham) in exchange for domestic peace that is largely free from terrorist attacks on their soil? A similar arrangement was supposed to have been agreed to in the wake of the 1972 Olympic massacre of the Isreali athletes, thought I don’t know whether it was ever officially acknowledged.

        • I wish you were right. Remember 7/7?

          There are many thwarted attacks, some of which we’ve reported. The Rotherham complicity is bec the police and social workers were deathly afraid of being seen as racists. Until the west throws off that ridiculous charge, then the middle class with jobs and something to lose will collude with some of the criminals in exchange for their “get out of racism jail free” card.

          There is no domestic “peace”. There is a building pressure that will be set off when the EU and the US finally go broke. Obama is attempting (successfully) to worsen the situation so that when things do explode – it will be propped up until he’s out of office – whatever fecal matter hits the fan will fly in the face of whatever dupe is in charge.

          Except for the junior varsity ISIS, the rest are isolated cells who make their own plans free of intervention.

        • Whether the Muslims you talk about are extremists or not does have little importance -excepting the losses of course. Would you let foreigners to incubate inside your house knowing that in a few years time (translate time for a nation) knowing that they will take away your house from your kids and make the house comfortable for their kids instead (non-violently, through “democratic vote” of the majority, their majority, of course?)

      • “Redistribution” of wealth
        – seen from the leftists’ side, congruent with

        Jizya, from the islamic point of view

        • Welfare Jizya isn’t enough though. They have to both get jizya and be in charge, forcing all others into submission (supposedly to “Allah” but actually to themselves).

  4. In WW2 the Italians had a cutting edge naval special warfare unit, the Flotigilia Decima M.A.S. (10th Maritime Assault Flotilla) which utilized high speed torpedo boats, submarines, mini submarines, human guided torpedoes and combat divers. Sounds like they need to revive it.

    • It was a great idea, though Italy has always been an object of ridicule when it comes to anything military.

      There are two ingredients required for what you suggest:

      1. Money. With what money is Italy to do this? That would be prohibitively expensive now, and the EU wouldn’t let them do it. Italy is heavily in debt – PIIGS hasn’t gone away or gotten better and Germany/Brussels call the tune now.

      Even America won’t spend that kind of money, not with Obama’s plans to eviscerate the Navy.

      (2) National will My hope lies in the Italian people saying “BASTA”. If enough people join in versions of Lega Nord they can make a difference. It will have to come to “nothing left to lose” and they’re almost there given the huge native unemployment rate, the numbers of adult children forced to live at home, people who CAN get jobs applying for work as shepherds in the North.

      Italy is in rough shape. Due to geography, it is being flooded again with lawless people. It has always been that way, back to Roman times. But this is new because the EU has brought its fiscal and political might to bear on a country that is essentially on its knees.

      So what they *need* to do and what they would like to do are very different from what they are *permitted* to do. The EU is a quasi-fascist police state. It is helpful to bear that in mind when considering what is to be done.

      • >>That would be prohibitively expensive now, and the EU wouldn’t let them do it.

        Nothing is prohibitively expensive when you deem it necessary.

        • Spoken like a rich American. I can name ten things in my life that are prohibitively expensive. Literally prohibitive, and I shall be doing without them.

          The gall.

          • >>Spoken like a rich American.

            I earn about 17K per year. There is plenty of money in Italy to defend the nation if Italians actually wish to defend it. Yes. Cut back on the pensions, cut back on the over indulged young, cut back on the absurd amount that goes into higher education, cut back the fraud-ridden and wasteful infrastructure projects that are not necessary, that are the creatures of corrupt politicians and the placated citizenry. Yes, cut back on a thousand things, but defend the damn nation. If necessary, let Italians depend upon blood, sweat, tears and toil. Is that too harsh? If Italians (and Europeans, and Americans) won’t defend their own nation they will lose it and the victors will write history. Nature is pitiless in this regard.

          • I think he’s right, Dymphna. Personal budgets can be razor thin but my “budget” when I was earning at my peak had plenty of reallocating that I could have done.

            At the national level, I think it’s axiomatic that budgets are just annual fairy tales. The U.S. teeters on the edge of fiscal disaster but we just had all kinds of money to attack Libya and arm the “good” Muslims in … oh, never mind.

            Sweden can’t house the amazing enrichers it has now but plans something like 600,000 more. Pensioners sink below the poverty line and high-level meetings were held to authorize purchase of a pencil for one gent, though the fact that nearby pencil emporia sold only packages of four added a significant layer of complexity. Still … still … the Swedish government decided on an annual 350,000,000-kroner expenditure in Africa for reproductive health education for male and female homosexuals.

          • I’m going to weigh in on Dymphna’s side here and say that, even if there are options available which are NOT prohibitively expensive, there will always be ideas which cannot be practically implemented with available resources, regardless of how “necessary” one may deem such implementation (indeed, due to the manner in which supply and demand curves affect the final price point in normal economics, deeming something “necessary” is often sufficient to increase the actual resources needed to accomplish it).

            Just now, I think I need to turn the moon into chocolate, a simple matter of directing coordinated nuclear particle emitters at the moon so as to convert the existing elemental composition into the proportions and molecularly bonded juxtapositions of elements (primarily hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen) found by careful femto-scale analysis of, say, a single Guittard milk chocolate chip. But, according to a few simple calculations, absolute control of all the economic resources and direction of them to this single purpose for an entire century (by which time the economic output of the human population will have been reduced to zero through starvation and disease) will be inadequate to accomplish such a feat.

            But I REALLY need a lot of chocolate, RIGHT NOW!

            Oh well. I shall just settle for raiding the pitifully inadequate supply of chocolate in my kitchen cupboard. It does not satiate my almost unlimited desire for chocolate quite the way an entire planetoid of the stuff might, but the one is possible with the resources I have and the other is not possible with any resources which I can plausibly obtain within the next millennium.

            I think that Italy is in a genuine pinch with regards to training, equipping, and arming a cutting edge naval force, even one focused entirely on littoral operations. But I have to wonder whether perhaps, with a bit of political will sufficient to endure some casualties and collateral damage, they might make due with something that they CAN put together.

            Not that I believe there is the slightest chance that their national government will actually choose to do so while the defense of their nation is left in their hands. But for better or worse, that won’t be a problem for very much longer. On the other hand, the reason it will no longer be a problem is that the removal of their government from any position of responsibility with regard to national defense is likely to be accompanied, if not accomplished by, a rather dramatic reduction in the effective ability of any Western nation to carry out advanced economic activities at all.

  5. I suggest portmanteau “MIGRAINTS” as they give Europe headache and nausea :/
    One of the guys with whom I attended PEGIDA in London said that “it will kick off in France” but it looks like Italy may beat them to it (pun not intended).

  6. Meanwhile in South Africa locals are fighting pro-diversity madness as well. Some article on

    “Thousands of people marched through Durban to call for better protection for immigrants, more than 1,000 of whom have fled their homes in the city and sought shelter in camps.

    Marchers chanted “Down with xenophobia!” and “A United Africa” at an event attended by residents, students and local religious and political leaders”

    The key word here is “political leaders”. This was a setup march. Liberal traitors must be [intemperate suggestions redacted].

  7. @JTW, @Scorpius
    Sinking the boats and their cargo will not be tolerated until there is a full blown civil war, if then. Sinking the boats in harbor will work until the smugglers start using human shields, which would probably be the end of the first week at best. My modest proposal is provide food and necessities in refugee camps, and NO public assistance to non nationals outside those camps. Also, a robust program of screening refugees and deportation of those who do not qualify would help.

  8. There are only two sensible things we can do:
    1) Drop the “big portabello” on theses countries (besides turning terrorist into corpses it should also turn all that sand into glass
    2) Drop piglets from drones right into their boats, the camps they are in, etc. And photograph it – then make millions of copies and drop the copies over all of north Africa.

    Alternatively just use them for slave labor (that’s what most would get if they went to Saudi Arabia – but maybe a few things on this sort will discourage some from ever coming and encourage many of those who are already in our midst to be very afraid, very afraid.

    Now if only some of these European countries would man up and do something about the problem – – – oh wait. There are a lot of elections coming up soon the right can only grow and grow and dismantle the EU.

    • Susan, warriors, at their best, follow a noble cause, exposing themselves to danger on behalf of those who are unable, or even unwilling, to defend themselves. I doubt whether many would endorse your methods.

      • I would be willing to endorse SOME bleeping method so long as it didn’t involve surrendering to primitives and their whims as to residence or speaking the words “pretty please with sugar on it.”

        It’s just taken as a given that our shiny new guns can’t be used for anything besides decoration (e.g., the shooting of the Canadian soldier near the parliament who had no ammo for his weapon). And if the traffickers fire their rifles in the air, why, the Finnish coast guard vessel just could NOT fire back. By way of comparison, check out YouTube videos of pirate encounters with the Russian navy (and ours when the Head Muslim in Charge is in what passes for the media “spotlight”).

        These niceness policies are right out of “Cosmo Girl,” “Modern Knitting,” or “Metrosexual Fashion World.” Though I recognize there are not a few reality-based women in this world. God bless them/you!

        Dymphna’s right, of course. The political will isn’t there so Westerners will still be treated as the invaders’ female dog.

        If we ever get grr cross about this there will be non-stop ferry services from Lampedusa to Benghazi for five years and any resistance on the southern shores of the Med will be annihilated. If they can get crazy, we can get crazier.

          • I agree with you Colonel, we need to do something other than run around like chooks with their heads cut off.

            One problem is our ‘leaders’ have already capitulated to the primitives (for us) but as I see it the biggest problem of all is that we are not allowed to defend ourselves–or even criticize the hordes.

            It only needs one country to rebel, to tell the U.N. and the E.U. what to do with themselves, and the floodgates would burst open; trouble is, I’m still waiting for that to happen!

          • You can’t elect your leaders in a place that doesn’t produce any voters who’d recognize such. Our leaders didn’t capitulate, they actually LED us here.

            The Left says you can’t criticize, but that’s what we’re doing. Guess we’ll miss all those free lunches, eh?

            If Italy continues to be pushed to the wall, it may well happen that Italians feel they’ve nothing left to lose…

        • Yes, the soldier with a rifle but no bullets, because that would be too dangerous, he might hurt himself or someone else, seems like a perfect symbol for the cowardice that has taken over most of society at this point.

          Ft. Hood has demonstrated that this stupidity isn’t limited to a single honor guard in Canada.

          Absolutely everyone in every military ought to be not just allowed but required to carry at least a loaded pistol at all times. If they can’t be trusted to do that then what the heck can they be trusted to do?

  9. So, you are worried about this migration being a golden opportunity for human trafficking? The “normalization” of homosexuality and SSM in Western countries will be a terrible open door for the trafficking of vulnerable children under cover of “adoption”, “ovum donation”, and the like.

    The Western political class is indeed a suicidal arm of Western civilization.

    • There. You just named it. When I said we have to have the political will, that’s what I meant.

      We don’t have it because we’ve permitted the deliberate flooding of our southern borders, and it was a POLICY thought up and carried out by the Obama administration. A policy that involved paid workers to guide children from Central American countries through the rough desert borderland areas.

      Here in America there is a veneer of democracy but the reality is gone. Police are in place to extort money – which was one reason for the Ferguson riots; the other being the people paid by Soros groups to destabilize those NINETY municipalities that are within the boundaries of St. Louis County (that doesn’t include the city of St. Louis, which was largely cleaned out a long time ago. You see poor people mostly in govt subsidized housing).

      People are afraid of being stopped by the police because they don’t know when the scene will escalate to some nightmare “violation” and someone gets hauled off to jail…your car’s license could be one digit off the same one on a stolen car, the license is reported wrong and suddenly you’re a “criminal” in a stolen vehicle. Age and circumstance don’t matter.

  10. Italy is screwed. Might as well let the widespread rioting begin asap so nobody has to waste any more time wondering what’s going to happen eventually anyway.

  11. The so called EU and its allies to coin a well know phrase ‘Couldn’t organize a piss-up in a brewery’. Barbarians from everywhere decend on the effete western snobs. It’s OK to notice?

    • Yea, but it’s not ok to say anything. The media silence combined with ammunition shortages in the U.S. due to huge demand would suggest that you’re not supposed to say anything, but you are supposed to stock up on guns and ammo just in case.

Comments are closed.