Refugees Who Become Welfare Migrants

When the “refugee crisis” began in 2015 – or rather was provoked by those intent on destroying European nationalism and culture through “multiculturalism” – the propaganda churned out by the legacy media attempted to fool concerned Europeans into believing that the hordes of military aged men invading the old continent via the eastern Mediterranean and Balkans were fleeing war, mainly from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

However it was clear to anyone with a little common sense that these “refugees” were not fleeing war, but rather migrating to rich European countries because of their generous welfare systems, and in the case of Germany, the encouragement of a Chancellor who under normal circumstances would be accused of treason rather than praised as a humanitarian.

Now Europeans are being conditioned to accept that these refugees supposedly fleeing war, are now migrants here to stay, despite the crime and mayhem they’ve brought with them. According to AFP via Yahoo News:

The peak of the migrant crisis in Europe has passed but many of those who came are here to stay and governments must focus on helping them integrate, the OECD said Thursday.

But many of those who came, fleeing war or persecution, “are likely to stay for some time, at least until their home countries are safe again”, said Stefano Scarpetta, OECD Director for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, in the report.

The peak may have passed but the damage is done, and it will not end until European politicians are forced by European citizens to put an end to this madness of cultural dissolution. In the case of Italy it seems that the boats filled with thousands of African migrants landing on its shores – in many cases with the aid of NGO’s – has finally forced its government to threaten the EU with closing its ports.

It goes without question that these refugees turned migrants are likely to stay considering the financial aid they receive in countries like Germany and Sweden, and regardless of whether their home countries become safe again, it’s unlikely they’ll be compelled to return to the deserts or war torn cities that they came from. Needless to say that Stefano Scarpetta is perfectly happy about this, probably because he thinks that cheap labour is good for business, and is no doubt rich enough to preach from his ivory tower.

OECD countries registered more than 1.6 million asylum requests, with at least two-thirds in European states, and 1.5 million were granted.

Presenting the report, OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria said international efforts were needed to address “negative perceptions” about migration, “which are often rooted in a misconception of the benefit that migrants can bring to recipient countries.”

The report said some countries had stepped up their integration efforts, praising the examples of the fast-track integration programme introduced in Sweden and the adoption of the first-ever law on integration in Germany.

But it said integration policies were falling short in other countries.

Perhaps if Angel Gurria could list some of the benefits that he’s referring to it would help address the negative perceptions that undoubtably exist, thanks in no small part to the terrorist attacks perpetrated by muslims, and the increase in violent crimes – including rape and murder – which have led to a backlash in Germany, and a government free-speech clampdown on people posting on Facebook and other social media sites.

It’s interesting to note that Gurria is a Mexican, preaching to European countries about “falling short” on integration policies. He’s also a man that was given the “Globalist of the Year” award from the Canadian International Council for his contribution to innovation in global governance and international affairs.

Undoubtably globalists like Gurria, intent on destroying nationalism as a prerequisite to world government, are frustrated by the opposition that central European countries like Poland are showing to their destructive agenda, as reported by Reuters:

Poland has a moral right to say ‘no’ to refugees, the country’s most powerful politician said on Saturday.

Jaroslaw Kaczynski, head of the ruling party Law and Justice (PiS), gave his views on immigration at a party convention in Przysucha, 100 km (60 miles) south of Warsaw.

“We have not exploited the countries from which these refugees are coming to Europe these days, we have not used their labor force and finally we have not invited them to Europe. We have a full moral right to say ‘no’,” Kaczynski said in a speech broadcast on television.

If western Europe is to survive our governments need to say “no” also, and if they’re not able to represent the will of the people they need to be replaced with leaders that are willing and able. Europe needs it equivalent of a wall with Mexico, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and a leader who is ready to Make Europe Great Again.


How Immigration Is Destroying The Swedish Welfare State

Leftists in the United States have long pointed at the “Nordic Model” welfare state epitomised by Sweden as the type of system they would like to implement in the US.

They think that by raising taxes and enabling collective bargaining between employers and trade unions they will obtain the same results in a country with a historical aversion to socialism, and one still divided in many areas along racial lines.

The second point matters, because although socialism of the type in Sweden worked well while it was still a racially and culturally homogenous country – beginning after WW2 – society began to gradually fragment with the influx of immigrants beginning in the 1970’s, resulting in government mistrust and in-group strategies, which have left the weight of propping up the failing system on a dwindling core of mostly white Swedes.

An article in The Economist has the following to say regarding this:

TENSIONS were running high when your correspondent visited Sweden at the height of Europe’s migrant crisis, in late 2015. Although most Swedes happily accepted the 163,000 asylum-seekers who arrived in their country that year, others were far less welcoming. In Malmo, a heavily immigrant city in the south, one cashier in a local shop was particularly angry. “They are just here for welfare and benefits,” he said, before telling your correspondent to “get out”. Such language was once the preserve of politicians from the far-right Sweden Democrats party, which has capitalised on the crisis to boost its support. Since then the government has been trying to adapt the Swedish welfare state to suit the times: both to accommodate hundreds of thousands of refugees and to try to diminish such right-wing sentiment. What is changing?

The first response by the centre-left coalition government to the overwhelming influx of refugees in 2015 was to close the border with Denmark. This was seen as an extreme measure: the deputy prime minister, Asa Romson, cried when announcing the move at a press conference. Since then it has also tried to tweak welfare spending. Previously, failed asylum-seekers received a monthly cash benefit of around 1,200 SEK ($140) and housing; this was scrapped last year. On May 31st the government voted to limit paid parental leave for immigrants: previously, refugees could claim the full amount of paid leave (480 days per child under the age of eight). Now they can only do so if the child is under one year old. For big families the benefits will be limited further.

At first the thought of the deputy prime minister crying about closing the border with Denmark to stop the influx of refugees seemed like a joke, but alas not.

It’s no wonder that “refugees” were uninterested in settling in Eastern European nations if they could make their way to Sweden – and likely Germany also – and get cash and housing even if their bid for asylum failed.

Those Swedes worried about becoming a minority in their own country can draw some encouragement from the government decision to limit paid parental leave for immigrants – one imagines a recently settled “refugee” using his free government provided iPhone 7 to call his three wives in Afghanistan telling them to pack the bags for themselves and their 17 children under eight – however the fact that it’s still applicable for children under one will only encourage them to find the first Swedish girl they can get their hands on and try their luck.

In truth the only solution to this is a complete collapse and reboot of the system, something which doesn’t seem too far off judging by the talk of civil war from the Swedish National Police Chief. It remains to be seen if Swedish men still have the fighting spirit of their viking ancestors lying dormant somewhere inside them, which will save their women and their country, but not their once idealised welfare state.



Starbucks Hiring Invaders To Serve Coffee In Europe

Remember when Howard Shultz – the former CEO of Starbucks, and its current executive chairman – told a shareholder in 2013 that he could “sell your shares” if he didn’t agree with the company’s stance on gay marriage?

Well that should have left things quite clear to anyone who was unsure about the company’s position on the political spectrum, and its evident disdain for anyone right of Barrack Obama, even at the risk of losing their business.

Now they’ve decided to go a step further by effectively telling jobseekers and customers in eight European countries, who are senseless enough to give money to this corporate giant rather than support their local coffee shops, that if they’re not happy with the EU’s and mama Merkel’s migrant policy they can drink their coffee elsewhere. As reported by the Independent:

Starbucks will hire 2,500 refugees across Europe by 2022 as part of a wider plan that sparked a social media backlash when it was announced in January.

The world’s largest coffee chain said on Tuesday that it had already started the hiring the refugees, which it said would represent around 8 per cent of its current European workforce of 30,000.

Starbucks‘ commitment was made to coincide with World Refugee Day and proves “that businesses like ours can use its scale to make a positive impact in people’s lives,” said Martin Brok, president of Starbucks for Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

The company will roll out the initiative in Britain, France, Austria, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Germany and the Netherlands.

So basically 2,500 jobs that could go to unemployed Europeans – in this case unskilled workers who may already be in a delicate economic situation themselves – will be given to “refugees.” Let’s see how well that works out for them. At this rate by 2022, 2,500 workers may make up 100% of Starbucks workforce after the company is forced to put a hijab on their mermaid logo and a crescent above her head. Somehow the name Crescentbucks doesn’t have the same ring to it, but hell, we need to move with the times, right Howard?

The company faced fierce criticism from some people using the #BoycottStarbucks hashtag on social media. So far, only a handful of people on Twitter appear to have expressed disapproval of the latest announcement regarding European hires.

It’s hardly surprising they received fierce criticism from “some” people on social media, but why even mention that if they then seem to contradict themselves after by claiming that only a “handful” of people expressed disapproval. It’s also quite surprising that they didn’t qualify the statement by writing instead that “only a handful of racist white supremacists on Twitter appear to have expressed disapproval…”

Europe’s refugee crisis shows no signs of abating. Around 360,000 refugees and migrants arrived on the Europe’s shores last year, many from war-torn Syria and Iraq as well as African countries including Guinea and Mali, according to the UN refugee agency.

Yes, nothing quite like getting your coffee served by someone with PTSD from a war-torn third world hell hole where customer service is as rare as a functioning Starbucks, and you’re likely to get scalded with boiling water for demanding the correct change.

Last week, the European Commission launched legal proceedings against three European Union member states who have refused to take in refugees.

Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are accused of not fulfilling their obligations outlined in a 2015 plan to relocate migrants from Italy and Greece, to help share the burden. The three Eastern European countries have taken in a total of just 12 people since the agreement started.

Perhaps those 12 people could be hired in their respective Starbucks as a pilot project, and if successful the EU would have a perfect example of the unique benefits that refugees can bring to their local economies? Or even better, why not persuade Starbucks to hire refugees as 100% of their workforce and eventually rid themselves of this subversive company by putting them out of business after enough customers have taken their business elsewhere. Now that would be poetic justice.





Pivoting From Afghanistan To A Defence Of The West

The 1842 Kabul Retreat remains as one Britain’s worst military disasters. At the time Britain was well into her “imperial century” and was unchallenged at sea, much like her successor the United States is today.

But that massacre at the hands of the Afghans was the first stark lesson for Western armies on the perils of meddling in a country whose people are fiercely independent and hostile to outside interference when they’re not busy fighting amounts themselves.

It should also have been a lesson the US learned after the CIA covertly supported the Mujahideen in their successful war against the Soviet Union, but apparently not.

Admittedly, the US’s intervention can hardly be compared in terms of negative consequences to those two conflicts, but after nearly sixteen years of continuing casualties it’s time the decision is made to withdraw all troops and leave the Afghans to their own incomprehensible devices – it appears that they no longer want to endure Western freedom.

Thus unfortunately it’s no surprise to see reports of coalition troops – in the latest case US – continuing to be treacherously killed despite an end to major combat operations in 2014. As reported by AP:

An Afghan soldier opened fire on American soldiers on Saturday, injuring at least seven, the U.S. military said. It was the second such insider attack by an Afghan soldier in the past week.

Abdul Qahar Araam, spokesman for the 209th Army corps, confirmed that an insider attack took place at a camp in Mazar-e Sharif. Araam said the soldiers returned fire and killed the attacker.

Gen. Dawlat Waziri, spokesman for the Afghan Defense Ministry, also confirmed the attack.

The Resolute Support mission announced on its Twitter feed that seven U.S. service members were wounded but said there were no U.S. fatalities. It said one Afghan soldier was killed and one wounded.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid praised the attack in a statement sent to the media. But he did not claim Taliban responsibility.

Last week three U.S. soldiers were killed by an Afghan soldier in eastern Nangarhar province. In that case Mujahid claimed that the shooter was a Taliban loyalist who infiltrated the army specifically to seek out opportunities to attack foreign soldiers.

Since the US and UK intervened in 2001 to oust the Taliban and deny al-Qaeda a safe base of operations – in other words blow up a few caves and tunnels, destroy some monkey bars and other invaluable jihadi training facilities with multimillion Dollar weaponry – and were subsequently joined by NATO forces in 2003, a total of 94 coalition soldiers have been killed in so called “green on blue” attacks, out of a total of 3535 fatalities.

Fortunately none of the seven “insider attacks” described above were fatal this time, but the fact that they continue, and the Taliban concurrently praise them, is a sign that not all is well in poppyland. So are coalition forces still in Afghanistan to safeguard and oversee the production of heroin as concluded by some or are there other reasons?

The answer to that question is yes, and it most likely has to do with a variation of “The Great Game” which saw world powers pit their forces against each other for control of central and Southern Asia in the nineteenth century.

It’s time for the US to scale back her empire and put her troops and resources to better use – namely Making America Great Again. The same goes for the UK and the rest of the Western coalition forces in a region which has been the nexus of an exodus of “refugees” that have invaded Europe under the auspices of NATO’s erstwhile partner Turkey.

It seems unlikely that this “refugee” crisis comprised of military aged men, with a penchant for violence and European women, would have materialised if those coalition troops had been patrolling the Aegean Sea, and stationed along the Greek border with the country whose leader has called for Turkish couples in the EU to have five children each. We ignore his veiled threat at our peril.

Our troops should be defending our nations, not Afghanistan – or for that matter Iraq. It’s time to pivot to a defence of the West.