977 words 
On Friday, December 20, Matteo Salvini was absolved of the kidnapping charges brought against him by Palermo prosecutors. This is the second time that leftist activist judges working in concert with immigration NGOs have failed in their attempts to wage lawfare against Italy’s former Minister of the Interior.
The first case was over four years ago. Fulfilling his duty and his promises, Salvini refused to let a migrant rescue ship, called the Gregoretti, dock in Italian ports and dump its cargo of third world migrants onto Italian soil. The Tribunale dei Ministri di Catania claimed that Salvini had “kidnapped” the 131 migrants aboard the Gregoretti and deprived them of their liberty and “human rights”. Italy’s senate then stripped Salvini of his ministerial immunity in order to allow a trial against him to proceed. Eventually, a Catania judge threw out the case.
But the left never rests on their laurels. A second kidnapping charge was filed. This time it was for Salvini’s refusal to let a migrant ship operated by the NGO “Open Arms” dock in Lampedusa. Activist prosecutors from Palermo brought the same “kidnapping” charge against Salvini. Due to backlogs, COVID-19, and the complexity of the case, it took several years to reach a verdict, but finally, we have it, and it is no different than the previous verdict. The Palermo court ruled that the facts do not support the charges levelled at Salvini. He was acquitted.
Had Salvini been found guilty, he could have faced a sentence of 6 years in prison. As expected of any Western European nation, Italy’s liberals, neo-communists, and dysgenic leftist freaks were rubbing their hands in anticipation all throughout the trial and leading up to the court’s final decision. Everyone else was rather put off by the whole affair. The world’s attention turned to Italy, with Elon Musk using X to share his disbelief and displeasure along with his support for Salvini, thereby directing the eyes of millions and the international media towards the political hit job taking place in Sicily.
While Salvini was staring down a possible jail sentence, Istat, Italy’s national statistics agency, published data showing that in 2023, only 4.4% of Italian women who reported being raped said that their attacker was Italian, compared to 24.7% who said that the rapist was a foreigner. Given the native-to-foreigner population ratio, that is 550% more rape committed by foreigners. Furthermore, 39% of the inmates in Italian prisons come from North Africa, the same Maghrebi countries from which the majority of recent migration into Italy originates. At the level of juvenile crime, it’s even more alarming. As of January 2024, 51% of juvenile detainees are foreign. Many of these foreign criminals will have arrived in Italy thanks to the very same NGOs Salvini battled against.
Consider, for but one example, the case of Abdesalem Lassoued. In October of 2023, Lassoued opened fire on Swedish football fans who had arrived in Brussels to watch Sweden play Belgium. He killed two Swedes, 60-year-old Patrick Lundström and 70-year-old Kent Persson. Abdesalem Lassoued was himself later shot dead by police. This Tunisian terrorist had a criminal history. In his home country, he had been sentenced to 26 years in prison for, among other heinous crimes, attempted murder. Convenient for Tunisia, Lassoued escaped and entered Europe via…guess where…the Italian island of Lampedusa, which has become the dumping ground and gateway for Afro-Arab “migrants” and “asylum seekers”. In reality, a useful rule of thumb is to replace “asylum seekers” with “wanted violent criminals on the run”. Things start to make a lot more sense henceforth.
Since at least 2018, when Salvini’s party Lega was voted into a coalition government with leftist populists, Italy has been a country where nationalists have tried repeatedly to stop the migrant invasion of their homeland using peaceful and legal methods. At every turn, however, they are blocked. Earlier this year, current prime minister Giorgia Meloni reached an agreement with the government of Albania wherein Italy would send its failed “asylum seekers” to a detention centre built in Albania specifically designed to hold them while their documentation is processed and their eventual final destination–for example, their home countries–is determined. The Italian government identified a pissing 12 (twelve!) fakeugees deserving deportation. No sooner had the decision been reached did Italy’s liberal legislature leap into action again, crying about a violation of European Court of Human Rights laws. A Roman court ruled that the migrants must be returned to Italy. In the end, the pact with Albania was scrapped.
The message is clear: you cannot prevent these people from coming to your country, even if they violate all manner of migration and asylum laws, and you cannot remove these people from your country either, even if they are wanted criminals. Meanwhile, your sons and daughters, grandparents, wives and husbands, will continue to be raped, maimed, and murdered by these people, and you will continue to pay for their housing and nourishment.
The battle is not over, however. The Catania and Palermo rulings set a precedent: it is not a crime to defend your country’s borders. It is not a crime to prevent foreign NGOs from depositing strangers on your shores. Matteo Salvini has several faults. He is a bit buffoonish at times. He is a Zionist shill like so many of the “kosher right” leaders in Europe. Nevertheless, he deserves credit for actually trying to do something to stop Big Immigration and the insidious NGO industry. Giorgia Meloni and her allies on the European right, such as it is, must press on. If Salvini committed no wrongdoing in keeping NGO ships at bay (quite literally), then why not do it again? Why not do it more? The NGOs have no right to treat Italy like a human depository. In fact, why not turn the tables and level charges against Open Arms? Surely, with all their links to human trafficking, there’s no shortage of “kidnapping” going on.
7 comments
Another absolutely excellent article by Mr. Plume. He has a way of putting things, with devastating calm, that delivers the message very effectively.. Also, hoping for more podcasts from this brilliant commentator with a unique, smooth and composed vocal delivery.
“HUGE WIN FOR ITALY!”
No, it is not. How in the world is criminally charging an Italian who is protecting the Italian People & Their Homeland & then acquitted, a win for Italy? Those involved in having anything to do with attacking or charging any Italian who wants to protect Italians are the ones who should be prosecuted for treason. Traitors should be quickly prosecuted & sentenced. Do we want to save our people & their homelands or do we want to save our people & their homelands?
Yesterday I saw that saying “Germany for Germans” is not allowed at a futbol match. I would say those who are against Germany for Germans must be prosecuted for treason. We are literally being attacked & we do nothing.
Exactly right. Who’s voting for people who are against the actual citizens of the country? Has 51% of the European people gone insane? It’s like a brain disease was released at the end of WW2 and it’s metastacized now. Someone’s got to find the cure.
I figure it’s the same thing in American politics. All major parties get “campaign contributions” from the same globalist billionaires. As far as minor parties go, “Well, I really like this guy, but I’d better vote for the RINO instead, so we can keep the Democratic bozo out of office.”
AFD Alice Weidel just said “…we want that something finally changes in our country…”, what a waste. Until Alice or any European aka White says it explicitly – this is our homelands & all you non-Europeans have to go back to your own homelands – then it’s just a waste of time.
Good news, but the overall article merely reinforces my more general, long time point that a majority of the white race is evolutionarily defective. If white majorities really wanted to take back their homelands, they could still do so (certainly in Europe, even France!). But only minorities ever vote for national preservation. That nationalist vote grows over time as objective racial conditions continuously deteriorate, but so does the imported alien vote. In this stalemate, no substantive improvement ever happens.
And worse, even if one day the actual “immivasion” does get halted, will whites simply breathe sighs of relief, and declare “victory” – or will they have the fortitude to push on for the ethnostate(s)? The problem is that ending immigration will likely defer the true long term threat, which is less conquest-by-immigration (a very real possibility for now) than mutation-by-miscegenation (ie, the gradual “Brazilianization” of the entire white world).
Impossible as it has been thus far even to end the immivasion, despite doing so involving no decline in white well-being (no civil wars, mass deaths, extensive economic dislocation or property destruction), actually removing the miscegenationist threat will be astronomically more difficult and painful. What does even an ethnonationalist European government, one which has actually terminated Third World colonization, do about the Europe-born, completely linguistically and culturally assimilated half-breed children of indigenous fathers or mothers? I suspect most whites, even patriots, would consider expelling those half-breeds to be overly cruel (and this sentiment will actually have greater currency in the public mind once the immivasion has been halted, and the white nation in question is thereby much less threatened). And yet, if they remain and the intermarriage process continues, ultimately what will exist in the future will no longer be the white race as we had so excellently evolved over the last million years.
The problem, we can see, is ultimately one of developing a completely new ethic of white racial preservation, one which persuasively demonstrates (to a sufficient number of whites) that preserving our race (which encompasses not only its territory and sovereignty, but its purity) justifies taking what would otherwise be considered (by most whites) to be inordinately cruel measures. This in turn requires some new balancing between the traditionally individualistic ethics of the West, and a new ethic of the collective. This sounds straightforward, but I suspect it is really a monumental philosophical task.
The last line is exactly where my mind was going too. Oftentimes after someone is exonerated, there are cries of ‘they should counter-sue for false accusations!’ etc. But it doesn’t work like that. The legal philosophy is probably that it would discourage real victims from pressing charges for, let’s say, sexual assault. Who would want to bring their case forward if there was a real chance they’d lose everything they worked for, and possibly their freedom too, for doing so?
It’s a real bind, because false accusations absolutely do happen. I wish I had the solution! This was not a real kidnapping case.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.