The "migration crisis" on the Polish border, Part 3

The freedom that Belarusians seek is simply the unfinished business of the freedom that Poles have already attained. Of course Polish solidarity will be with the Belarusian people, who have much more reason to rush the Polish border than specially flown in people from the ME. Yet they do not.

The "migration crisis" on the Polish border, Part 3
Charles Martel protecting our borders

Part 1, Part 2

People whose cities are not being defaced, whose daughters are not being raped, whose children are not being brainwashed into submission to Islam and physically threatened by Muslims each day they attend school, whose social services are not being cut, whose culture is not being rubbished, whose freedom is not being eroded, whose sleep is not disturbed by calls to prayer at ungodly hours, who do not fear for their safety from terrorist attacks when they walk in the street, such people have the luxury of not liking "walls or barbed wires on our external borders," even if those borders are not actually theirs. Those unsightly walls and barbed wire fences protect not only the border and the citizens behind it going about their lives, but also the border guards. Perhaps those so offended by Poland defending its borders would rather see a patrol vehicle ambushed, the border guards killed, their weapons taken and the invaders speed deeper into the European Union. I rather suspect their sentiments would, in such an event, not be with the murdered border guards.

Green Party MEP Viola von Cramon-Taubadel "agrees" that further sanctions should be imposed on Aleksander Lukashenko and even extended to the companies leasing their planes to his regime — those are EU companies based in Ireland! — but then she hastens to add:

We have heard there was a survey in Poland [asking] whether the Polish government should help the people in need and the refugees—the migrants—on the border. 82% were actually in favour of this. Only 13% were against and 5% didn't have an opinion on this. So I think we should also take into consideration that the public opinion is not generally against people in need, against people on the border, and I hope we'll find a European approach where not just Frontex is invited and being active there and looks for scrutiny and transparency, but also [European Asylum Support Office] EASO, the European asylum organisation from Malta, because we have to find a solution that also puts the focus on the humanitarian aspect. We should also take care of the people—I would say the majority of the people. If we do not just show the pictures and use military rhetoric, I think we will find places and we will find enough people who show empathy and who would be ready to take care of the people who ask for asylum in the European Union.

The Polish government is quite correct to keep Frontex, the EU's border agency, well away from its border, seeing Frontex's involvement as a ceding of their sovereignty. Frontex's job, I suspect, is not about securing the EU's external borders, but about enabling safe passage across it. Similarly, Poland has done well to deny NGOs and the toxic media access to the border. As Italy learnt to its cost, the media, NGOs and the EU 'asylum policy' agencies are hybrid war instruments par excellence. Not for nothing does Viola von Cramon-Taubadel tout EASO. It exists to facilitating illegal entry into the EU. Hybrid warfare this certainly is, but who is fighting on which side?

The only "weakness" in the EU asylum system is the refusal of Poland and other Eastern and Central European member states to grant Muslims free, undocumented entry to their territories. This is a serious problem for the EU because it interferes with bringing its side of the dhimmi bargain of paying jizya to the Mediterranean Muslim countries, providing endless "hospitality" to Muslim invaders, destroying European culture, norms and standards so that Muslims can "feel at home" in the EU, and readying its population for conversion to Islam. All three: the EU, Russia and the OIC/Arab League, want a compliant Poland, except that there are other Polands in the area, and many aspiring Polands in the EU heartlands. Brexit still fresh on everyone's mind, the EU dares not press Poland too hard, but Charles Michel's "solidarity" with Poland must go down as one of the most impotent Agincourts in history:

I came to Poland today to express the solidarity of the whole EU with Poland as it faces a serious crisis. ...As we face this hybrid, brutal, violent and shameful attack, the only answer is firmness and unity, but also the promotion of our fundamental values.

Charles Michel is no Charles Martel, that much is clear. The EU's problem persists for a host of reasons: Poland is not capitulating; Iraq is flying its citizens back, NATO rejected Putin's demands to withdraw from eastern Europe and escalated, and the OIC/Arab League are not exactly known for taking the dilemmas of their dhimmis into account. It is my contention that the EU finds itself in a worse bind than does Lukashenko.

The Capitulation Subtext: On paper, it seems clear-cut. All that needs to be established is whether the country that the illegal entrants are being pushed back to fulfils the underlined criteria. Poland has been quite clear that for the thousands who have legally entered Belarus on tourist visas, Belarus does not meet these criteria, i.e., it is a safe country. Furthermore, the Iraqis can freely return to Iraq, gratis, leaving the Afghans, Syrians, Yemenis, etc., who find themsselves in a safe country, Belarus, and if asylum is what they want, must apply for it there, if the above criteria apply to their home countries. None of this has anything to do with Poland, Lithuania or Latvia. For all the EU's moralising, the "people in need" make it quite clear that they are not interested in seeking asylum in Poland. By supporting these violators of the Polish border in their efforts to transit Polish territory without applying for it, is to encourage the lawlessness of Shari'a: the world belongs to Muslims and they caan go anywhere they want. So far has the EU capitulated to Islam and it will not tolerate any of its citizens, let alone member states, defying Islam. The EU ignoring its own criteria against Poland's insisting on applying them, while steamrollering "asylum" when it clearly does not apply at the EU/Belarus border, strongly suggests that the EU is out to break Poland.

The EU has no interest in the people stuck on the Belarusian side of the border returning to the Middle East. Why would it throw away such an opportunity by interfering with Lukashenko's border operation? So the EU will take no serious action against either Lukashenko or Putin, thereby risking increased tensions with NATO. Instead, on 1 December, the EU Commission President Charles Michel issued the following earth-shattering statement:

In the past weeks, we have managed to bring the EU’s collective weight to bear in the face of the hybrid attack directed at our union, ...Collectively, the EU made clear that attempts to undermine our union will only solidify our solidarity with one another. ...Today we are giving living manifestation to that solidarity.

Still don't smell the rat? Read on...

Today, to protect our borders, and to protect people, we are giving flexibility and support to Member States to manage this emergency situation, without compromising on human rights.

Note: "To protect our borders," but not "To protect our people." What people, then, does the EU have in mind to protect? Why, the very people attacking the borders! How does one protect one's borders and at the same time protect the people attacking those borders? All that Poland needs to do is open the borders and there will be no need for anyone to attack those borders; thus is the EU a border protector. A perfect analogy is the idea that as soon as non-Muslims convert to Islam, Muslims will stop waging jihad warfare against them; thus is Islam a religion of peace. How do you get Poland to open the borders? By playing on the Polish people's sensitivity towards human rights. "Without compromising on human rights." How do people who attack borders evoke concerns over their human rights? By depicting them as something other than people who attack borders, such as "asylum seekers":

This should allow the Member States in question to fully uphold the right to asylum...

What right do non-asylum-seekers have to asylum, especially when they are legally tourists, find themselves in a safe country, and those who flew in from Iraq, the UAE and Turkey were never in danger in the first place? The EU's condescension here is staggering. Poland has already made it abundantly clear that it does accept asylum applications, but only from people who are legally refugees and apply through any of the various legal channels. Given that none of these invited tourists are in danger in Belarus, unlike thousands of Belarusians, there can be no question of any of them being refugees or qualifying for asylum. Poland is under no obligation to entertain any applications from anyone who has entered Poland illegally, and under no obligation to grant asylum to anyone in Belarus, except Belarusians and Ukrainians. If this legal reality happens to coincide with the colour or religion of the people involved, then tough. Poland must not allow itself to be intimidated by charges of racism or "Islamophobia". Those who cast such slurs, if they had the slightest interest in facts, would find that Poland is complying fully with the EU principal of non-refoulement. Pushback is not illegal.

What has happened to the citizens of those countries that "fully uphold the right to asylum," as the EU describes it, is there for all to see. For women in Germany, Sweden, France and the UK, as well as in Norway, Italy, Spain, wherever there are substantial numbers Muslims, Europe has long since ceased to be a place in which they can walk around freely as full citizens, one step away from Shari'a confinement to the home. As soon as they feel strong enough, Muslim immigrants claim their Shari'a entitlement to white women. It is an appalling story[1], both for its content and for the number of women in Europe still demanding that the borders be opened, oblivious to what awaits them.

The freedom that the citizens of Belarus seek is simply the unfinished business of the freedom that Polish citizens have already attained. Of course Polish solidarity will be with the Belarusian people, who have much more reason to rush the Polish border than specially flown in Middle Eastern people seeing the chance of a better life, yet the repressed Belarusians do not attempt to enter Poland illegally, let alone attack the border and its guards. Many Belarusians, including the democratically elected President and the country's top Olympic athlete, as well as ordinary Belarusians, have legally sought and found asylum in Poland.

The EU Commission ignores all that and proceeds to instruct the Poles, the Lithuanians and the Latvians, as if they were children, with an Emergency migration and asylum management procedure at the external borders:

The 3 Member States will have the possibility to extend the registration period for asylum applications to 4 weeks, instead of the current 3 to 10 days. The Member States may also apply the asylum procedure at the border to process all asylum claims, including the appeal, within a maximum of 16 weeks - except where adequate support for applicants with particular health issues cannot be provided. In doing so, well-founded claims and those of families and children should be prioritised.

Material reception conditions: Member States focus reception conditions on the covering of basic needs, including temporary shelter adapted to the seasonal weather conditions, food, water, clothing, adequate medical care, and assistance to vulnerable persons, in full respect of human dignity. It is important that Member States ensure close cooperation with UNHCR and relevant partner organisations to support individuals in this emergency situation.

Return procedure: Member States concerned will be able to apply simplified and quicker national procedures including for the return of people whose applications for international protection have been rejected in this context.
People in need evading Polish border controls

To acquiesce in this fraud is to de-recognise your own borders, and all indications are that Poland is not about to make that mistake. With this kind of response to Poland, Putin knows exactly what he can expect from the EU when he makes his move on Ukraine, or indeed, on the Suwalki Gap. As for the EU's sanctions tough talk, they could just as well threaten to send the terrifying Josep Borrell and then wait for a quivering Putin to hide his entire army in Yakutsk. Poland, in contrast to the EU, is in a strong position from which it can prevail over the entire triple entente arrayed against it, if only the Poles would seize the initiative and escalate, instead of playing sitting duck. As we see, the EU has no interest in rules, even its own, so there would be no point in stoically sticking to them and allowing yourself to be destroyed. Martyrdom is only a sustainable option in a death cult. The EU-Muslim asylum arrangements and the NATO-Russia jostling, share a common weak link: the Lukashenko regime. The situation that Putin and Lukashenko, with or without EU collusion, have engineered on the Polish border makes it incredibly easy for Poland to effect regime change in Belarus. Here is one way this might be done:

  1. Immediately offer young Belarusians with vocational qualifications or university degrees, and established professionals, visa-free entry to Poland, a fast-track to citizenship and a generous business starter pack.
  2. Provide as much publicity and support as possible to Belarusian refugees in Poland (the EU says nothing about Belarusians and Ukrainians who legally sought and were given asylum in Poland).
  3. Seal the Polish eastern border to anyone from beyond Belarus who has not received prior clearance from the Polish Embassy in Minsk.
  4. Anyone found on Polish territory after breaching the border must be returned to Belarus as soon as possible. If they are in need of medical attention, give them medical attention. If they are hungry, give them pork meals and only pork meals.
  5. Deceased persons found on the Polish side of the border must under no circumstances be buried in Poland, but returned to Belarus.
  6. Instead of wasting its time with, and being misled by, the EU, Poland might get more reliable international support by pursuing the matter at NATO as a Kaliningrad threat is intimately linked to Russia's manoeuvring around Ukraine.
  7. Be ready to escalate and dominate the escalation.
  8. Leverage the new German Chancellor to scrap the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. There is now a much safer source in the Eastern Mediterranean that can be piped all the way up the Adriatic to make landfall in Trieste.

If this is a hybrid war, it needs a hybrid response. Poland's strategic end game has to be the creation of a democratic and free Belarus to form a more substantial link between Poland and Ukraine, effectively creating a deeper buffer from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Belarus is the Fashoda of the twenty-first century. Poland's aim, as the measures suggested above suggest, must be to bring about severe economic, political and moral dislocation in Belarus. Unwilling or unable to return home, but equally unwilling to risk being fed pork in Poland, large numbers of penniless Syrians, Yemenis and Afghans will overstay their tourist visas and drive away trade from Minsk shopping malls. This, combined with the haemorrhaging of the country's lifeblood to Poland, will precipitate further economic and social decline and place further conflicting pressures on the regime.

All the Muslim problems plaguing Western Europe for decades will start manifesting in Belarus, threatening not only Lukashenko, but also Vladimir Putin, forced into a rear-guard and costly shoring up the Belarusian regime, pushing the Belarusian people's willingness to put up with Russian overlordship to the brink and setting the stage for a Minsk Spring. The chances are that NATO can see this; the EU, unfortunately, has other priorities. Such developments will also expose the foolishness or synacism of those who advocate for open borders, not only in Poland, but in all EU countries, as well as those who obscure the facts and falsify history.

People in Poland will have a sense of having escaped by the skin of their teeth because the collapse of Belarus into Islamistan will be so rapid. A cold sweet moment that they will no doubt share with their forebears in Vienna, who, instead of the inane drivel of Charles Marcel, could welcome the army of King John III Sobiesky, who came not "to express the solidarity of the whole EU with Poland," but solidified the whole of Europe under Polish leadership. He recognised that Europe faced not just a "hybrid, brutal, violent and shameful attack," but a fullblown war waged by a 150,000 strong jihad army. Sobiesky and the defenders of Europe certainly had "firmness and unity," but to drive the invaders back, not to let them in. Sobiesky, too, had "fundamental values," but they were obviously very different to the "fundamental values" of the EU Commission.

What will unfold in Belarus over the coming days and weeks, provided Poland acts, will be a powerful illustration right next door of what Western Europeans (and North Americans) have been slow-boiled into accepting over decades. The Belarusian regime will be torn between forcefully expelling its invited "people in need of help," on the one hand, and on the other, harvesting whatever skills it can from amongst them to mitigate the loss of its professionals and educated youth to Poland. Either way, Lukashenko's position will become untenable and a serious spanner will have been thrown in both Putin's Kaliningrad/Ukraine hopes and the EU's Islamisation plans. More importantly, winning the hybrid war in this way will announce Poland's return as a big player on the world stage. Poland always talks big. Now, can it play big?

In 1683, Polish King Jan III Sobieski rushed his army to Vienna, there to defeat the Muslims assailing our borders, back after their failed jihad attempt in 1529, a process that has been underway since the eighth century and continues to this very day. Jihad comes back and will always comes back, until either all is Islam or Islam is no more.


  1. See, for example, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Prey: Immigration, Islam and the erosion of women's rights, 2021, HarperCollins.