Newsweek Demands the UK Take in 10,000 Syrian Refugees

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
April 15, 2015


As if there weren’t enough “refugees” and “asylum seekers” in the United Kingdom, the Jew magazine Newsweek (Jewsweek?), in an article writting by Neil Quilliam, has come out and demanded that the country be forced to take in another 10,000 of the buggers from Syria.

The good news is, bringing a bunch of gang-raping terrorists into the country will actually be good for it’s security.  How does that work?  Well, like this of course:

There is a clear link between instability in the Middle East and the U.K.’s increasing vulnerability to security threats. Current U.K. government policy toward Syrian refugees only accentuates these threats.

Instead, the U.K. government should underpin regional stability and support Syrian refugees and neighboring countries by resettling or providing temporary admission to 10,000 vulnerable Syrians.

If you don’t understand what those sentences mean, it is because you are stupid, goyim. Stupid, stupid, stupid. All smart people understand this, and if you don’t want people to know how stupid, stupid, stupid you really are, you should just pretend you understand it also.

You also must understand, goyim, that by not letting these people into your base, you are looking bad in front of the Moslems.

Without doubt, the U.K. has taken a leading role in alleviating suffering among Syrian refugees.

However, the U.K. government’s reluctance to resettle or provide humanitarian admission to more than a few hundred Syrians is harming the U.K.’s reputation in the Middle East. Moreover, it is squandering an opportunity to influence a new generation of Syrians who will likely lead the reconstruction of their war-torn homeland.

Yes, yes, yes! You will influence them! Just as you have done such a fantastic job already changing the policies of Pakistan and Africa by letting millions of them into your country! Pakistan and Africa are thriving due to mass immigration into the UK from these countries! If it worked already, how on earth can you be so sickeningly racist as to deny that it will obviously work exactly the same way once again, goyim?

And where else has the policy of letting foreigners into your country helped you shape their home countries?

In previous conflicts, the U.K. government admitted substantial numbers of refugees, notably 12,000 Iraqis between 1991 and 2001; 14,000 Iraqis between 2003 and 2013; and over 4,000 Kosovars in 1996.

The admission of Iraqi and Kosovar refugees has provided the U.K. with a number of direct foreign policy benefits. It has given rise to a cadre of Iraqi and Kosovar leaders who feel a close affinity with Britain and provide the government with almost exclusive access to senior decision-makers in both countries.

It has given rise to a new generation of Britons, fluent in English, educated in British schools and universities and with strong familial connections to both countries; this has significantly benefited U.K. trade and investment.

Ha! Didn’t you even remember this, goyim? Iraq is thriving because you allowed these people into your country, and you are on the inside of one of the most important countries in the whole world – IRAQ – and capable of directly influencing their policy as they – IRAQ – plot the course for the future of the human race, as the leading influential nation on the planet – IRAQ, thriving, productive and futuristic IRAQ.

Well, goyim, SYRIA is bound to be the next IRAQ – the next massive success story – are you willing to miss out on the opportunity to get in on the ground-floor of this great endeavor simply because you are so filled with hatred for the color of the skin?

Ah, you stupid, filthy goyim.  Of course you would bring that up.  Because in you sick little mind, you believe you can make an omelet without breaking any eggs.
Ah, you stupid, filthy goyim. Of course you would bring that up. Because in you sick little mind, you believe you can make an omelet without breaking any eggs.

I’m beginning to think goyim are so stupid they can’t even learn simple things.

The government should learn from this experience and apply it to its policy on Syrian refugees. Many of the gains with respect to the U.K.’s Iraqi and Kosovar communities could be replicated by a response to the Syrian crisis that includes a broadened program of resettlement, humanitarian temporary admission, enhanced family reunion and study visa programs.

And bringing these terrorist into you country will actually protect you from terrorism!  It is so obvious!

Admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees would also help to reduce the appeal that ISIS holds for some young Britons. It would provide a persuasive counter-narrative to extremist perspectives that could otherwise find sympathy. Supporting some of the most vulnerable Syrians would provide a clear demonstration that the U.K. is committed to fulfilling its role as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

Moreover, it would provide tangible evidence to families and community leaders in the U.K. who wish to prevent their own members from being radicalized. With appropriate levels of support, Syrian refugees in the U.K. could themselves become part of the counter-narrative and counsel young Britons against traveling to Syria to join ISIS.

Get it? I said, do you get it, goyim? If you are nice to them, they won’t murder you all. Do you want to get murdered, goyim? Do you really want to die, simply because you hate the color of the skin? If you don’t let more brown people into your base, the ones already there are just going to keep on killing you.

It is all so obvious, but your country is filled with emotional nutcases who just can’t grasp simple facts.

Many fears about immigration are based more on emotion and sentiment than on evidence. There is a clear case that resettling a larger number of Syrians would far outweigh the costs of accommodating them. As mentioned above, first, it would strengthen national security. Second, it would demonstrate commitment to Syria’s neighbours and underpin their security too—the U.K.’s security is directly linked to regional developments. Third, it would generate goodwill among the Syrian refugee population and diaspora, which would benefit the U.K. in the long term.

There benefits are literally endless, and there are no possible negative consequences.

Here’s the bottom line:

In short, a change in policy on resettlement and humanitarian admission would not only be a symbolic act of moral leadership but would also serve the government’s policy of supporting stability in the Middle East and offer long-term benefits for British national life, foreign policy and security.

Get it together, goyim mates. You need these thousands of refugees from a war torn third-world Islamic hellhole. If you don’t get them while the getting is good, your country will fall into obscurity and be destroyed by terrorism.