Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
September 25, 2016
After her dramatic election loss in Berlin, which also saw a pretty good turn-out for the Nazis of AfD, Merkel has begun quickly walking back her strategy of genociding the German race through mass-swamping with Moslems.
She’s now saying both that some will need to go back and that other countries need to have these people forced on them against their will.
Germany’s embattled Chancellor Angela Merkel said Saturday that Europe needs to secure more deals with third countries on sending back migrants who do not qualify for asylum.
“We want to stop illegal immigration while living up to our humanitarian responsibilities,” Merkel said after talks in Vienna with counterparts along the Balkan migrant route.
It was only a year ago that Merkel unilaterally nulled the Dublin Accords, specifically because she wanted to encourage as much illegal immigration as possible.
She said these people would pay pensions for old Whites, and the media Jews and Jewish economists backed her up, saying that all immigration is always good for the economy, because:
More people = more basic needs = more spending = bigger GDP = better economy.
But a bunch of illiterate rapists living on welfare doesn’t appear to be good for the economy. They’re certainly not paying any pensions.
“It is necessary to get agreements with third countries, especially in Africa but also Pakistan and Afghanistan… so that it becomes clear that those with no right to stay in Europe can go back to their home countries,” she told reporters.
In March the EU and Turkey struck an accord under which Ankara promised to halt a mass influx of migrants into Greece in return for billions in aid and other sweeteners.
The influx has far from stopped, however, with many migrants attempting treacherous sea crossings from Libya or Egypt to Italy instead.
This is of course just talk. There are over half a million Moslems in Germany that have not qualified to asylum and have just been allowed to stay and live on welfare anyway.
As far as making deals with countries to take these people back – why would they want to take them back? They are illiterate gang-rapists and terrorists. Literally the worst people on the entire planet.
What Merkel will actually do, however, is force these people on other European countries.
Angela Merkel has demanded the rest of Europe steps up efforts to alleviate the migrant crisis as she said Germany has done its fair share.
The German Chancellor said other European Union (EU) members need to accept refugees at a faster rate to reduce the backlog of people stuck in countries in the southeast of the bloc.
Speaking in Vienna at a meeting with nine other heads of government, she said: “In view of the many refugees who are already with us, other EU countries will have to jump in.”
Mrs Merkel, who operated an open-door policy last year which led to 1.1million refugees entering Germany, said it is “encouraging” other EU states have started accepting refugees.
Of course, these countries don’t want these people.
But Merkel claims to be the source of an objective universal morality, in the same way the Catholic Church once did. She says “it is morally correct to flood your country with Moslems because I say it is morally correct.” When asked to defend the basis for this argument, liberals will come up with all sorts of different feminine, emotional arguments, none of which have any real value or even make sense.
For example:
- It is sad because they are poor: we have more money than then so we have to allow unlimited numbers of them in our countries to live on welfare
- Revenge for the Crusades: a thousand years ago we defended ourselves from repeated invasions by fighting a war in Palestine. Because of that, we now have a responsibility to take care of these people. Also there is the “revenge for colonialism” and “revenge for various other wars” arguments.
- Preventing another Holocaust: in Germany in particular, Merkel and others will cite the country’s “dark history,” and claim (vaguely or more directly) that in order to prevent another Holocaust of the Jews, Germans must be ethnically cleansed from Germany.
Of course, unless morality protects the people, it is not actually morality, as morality must be based on the basic order of nature or it is just a random concept.
When someone argues “is it moral” in a philosophical sense, they are arguing “is it good” in the sense of “is it in our collective self-interest.” So, there can be debate about what exactly is right and wrong, but there cannot be a question of “is it right that we commit a genocide against ourselves” in the context of a moral discussion.
It may get confusing in the context of globalism and humanism, this idea that there is no difference between us and them – that there is no other – but but even if you accept this it doesn’t make any sense if you reduce it:
“The ancestors of my neighbor were oppressed by my ancestors, so I must let them come live in my house and rape and murder my family while I pay for their lives.”
And even if you remove “rape and murder,” as the German government does by working with the media to cover-up crimes, spending your resources on someone else because of historical crimes (real or imagined) doesn’t make any sense.
And on the “sad because they’re poor point” – no one is accused of immorality for not inviting homeless people off the street to come live in their house.
It’s absurd, this moralizing.
tfw Beach Boy was just a child and his dad needed new teeth
Regardless of what you think of the Bible (which isn’t even directly related to the Church itself in any real sense), the Church’s moral system was good for society, and everything it promoted as righteous had good social results. There is literally nothing wrong with this moral system, which is why the Jews who took down Christianity didn’t attack the systems themselves, but instead made goofy, childish arguments like “there is no proof God exists” or “the Bible isn’t historical.”
After they successfully destroyed Christianity, they were able to insert new morality into the vacuum. Which is where you get this “it’s sad because they’re poor” gibberish.
