I was struck recently by the similarity between migrant men dashing for a rubber launch and Allied troops storming the beaches on D-Day. Imagine if instead of Operation Overlord – in which we landed tens of thousands of men on a beach in one day – we had sent them over in batches of 50 – 100 every few days and the Germans had billeted them for us at their own expense! It is the stuff of fantasy of course. It is too silly to contemplate, which is why I expect none of our political leadership of security establishment have considered that this is what might be happening to the UK right now.
Could migrants be an invading army? The question has to be asked.
Let me be clear: I am not saying this is definitely what is happening, but I am saying that – if we examine the facts – it is something we should consider investigating and preparing for.
Some stats to consider:
- Approximately 180,000 migrants have arrived so far.
- Three-quarters of them are “men of fighting age”.
- Based on countries of origin, 80% are Muslim.
That means that there as of late August 2025, there are over 110,000 Muslim men of fighting age among these boat migrants, currently put up in state-provided accommodation in the United Kingdom. An unknown number, but it will be considerable, have combat training or experience.
Now, here is some shocking perspective: The standing army of the United Kingdom is only 108,000 personnel. They already outnumber our standing army. But is is worse than that. Only a third of that number are combat soldiers. When you remove the medically unfit (20%, if you must know) and logistics, technical and administrative personnel, our army is outnumbered 3-1 by military-age migrants.
Sure, we could try and mobilise British men, but our civilian population is unfit and unused to violence. They’d be up against men with the resilience to cross a continent and an a sea to get here, men from war-torn countries, and we have no idea what they have seen, or done themselves in these places.
Furthermore, our military is geared towards fighting sophisticated modern wars from the sky. Imagine fighting an insurgency-style war in the streets of Luton, or Birmingham, or London, or it spreading out into our small towns and villages and into rural areas. “This could never happen, you lunatic!” I can already hear the sneers of derision. Okay, why not? And what would we do if it did?
After all, we have already uncovered one terror cell who came in posing as migrants. And if there was one, you can be sure there are others. What monitoring do we have in place to ensure that migrant hostels are not turned into Jihadi recruitment centres – like our prisons allegedly are already. Would this ‘success’ not be replicated if it were possible? Who is making sure it is not?
There are those who would like to believe that these are poor refugees who have fled awful places, but where are the women and children? What men flee war-zones and then leave their mothers, wives and children behind? I struggle to accept this.
Twenty years ago, the SWP devised a slogan that might well turn out prophetic: “Refugees Are Here To Stay – Here To Fight!”. Perhaps it was a spark of inspiration. It seems to have resurfaced in London last week. I have no doubt the far left believe that ‘refugees’ will be new recruits to their revolutionary struggle; and with such numbers all sorts of new option open up to them.
We think that it is impossible that they might rise up and unleash violence upon us, easily outnumbering our combined military and police forces, but consider this opinion piece by Rashad Ali, an extremism expert with a UK think tank. Describing how an increasing number of Islamic scholars are suggesting that acting in defence of Gaza against those in the West who ally with Israel is a religious obligation, he says:
These statements when compared to stances taken by US and UK governments, show a polarization in the public space. They serve to illustrate the parallel radicalization process, that within mainstream Muslim, and Islamist circles, which views all military options are also legitimate. This will often be expressed within their own cultural, legal, and ethical frameworks of thinking, including Islamic religious edicts as above.
It serves to remind us how Bosnia, Syria, and other genocides have served as both polarizing and radicalizing factors. The absence of action to prevent the killings iin Gaza – a duty by international legal convention and basic human decency – creates a polarization. While much of the world looks on at the horror, and people literally see their friends, family members often, people they know and love, and entire communities they strongly identify with, being killed indiscriminately while the perpetrators and their allies enjoy impunity. In fact Western States including the US, continue to arm the perpetrators, rather than stop them; this further undermines any notion of international norms, rule of law, and any confidence in state institutions and apparatus as legitimate means of stopping such atrocities. The logic then turns only to non-State actors – radical actions, and escalation seems the only option left on the table, thus providing a moral legitimacy to radical ideology.
Now also consider all the “Globalise the Intifada” rhetoric getting louder and louder. Do you think this is just bluster, or do you think they really mean it? I think they are 9/11 serious. I think they are 7/7 serious. I think they are Bataclan and Manchester Arena serious. I think they are Charlie Hebdo serious. What happens if the beachhead of over 100,000 Muslim men of military fighting age – with no roots or affiliation to the UK – begin to take these fatwas seriously?
And, no matter how preposterous the thought seems to the smug and the sneering among our media and political establishment, they need to get serious too!
