NY TIMES: The Awful Brits Aren't Sucking Enough Syrian Dick

In an astonishing article in today's paper, I learned the British people are nasty racists.

They aren't doing "their share" in taking in the poor, poor Muslims.

With a picture of a pathetic little back yard with hanging laundry on it, the Times characterizes Great Britain as a skinflint nation that is so rich and so evil they won't even let the Muzzies have a little useless weed-strawn Allah's Little Acre in Sheffield.

That's the NY Times.

Their audience is affluent, educated Liberals who would instantly hire Syrians to be their maids or butlers. They wouldn't be so happy to have a Muslim as a son-in-law.

A warning case was the West Side affluent Jews who hired a Latina babysitter. The woman decided she was being given too much work to do by the Kike Bitch that hired her as a nanny so...she dragged the two Jewish children to the bathtub, tossed them in, and hacked them to pieces. After her relatives pleaded that she was insane, the woman "lawyered up" and at last report, still hasn't been tried for the crime.

So maybe Times readers are a bit leery of actually hiring minorities that "seemed like members of the family. We paid her so well. We took her on vacations with us. How could she butcher the children?"

But I digress.

The Times has a reputation for being fair, thorough and believable. They don't slant news. No.

If it's in "the newspaper of record," it must be true.

But did you notice how the article was able to slant statistics? Sweden is wonderful about taking in Muzzies, and Great Britain isn't. But that's how you play with statistics. There's something about how by percentage, or per capita, Sweden has taken in more Muzzies, so that makes them a better people.

The Times doesn't bother to mention that "Jihadi John" isn't from Sweden. There was no attack on a Swedish bus or train leaving people burnt and maimed. There aren't "no go" areas in Swedish towns as there are in Great Britain. Maybe this is because the actual number of Muzzies in Sweden is small and those few who would want to go to Sweden might not have a murderous agenda?

Let's stop for a moment.

Let's talk about the word "refugee."

It evokes such sympathy, doesn't it? A "refugee" is someone in agony. Refugees are poor, and in desperate trouble through no fault of their own.

Hmm. Who do you remember as being "refugees?" How about the Jews who were persecuted, their homes destroyed, their wealth looted, their very lives in danger because of tyrannical genocide?

The response to the refugee Jews in 1910 was, of course, GOOD. TO HELL WITH THEM. WHO WANTS JEWS?

The response to the refugee Jews in 1940 was, of course, GOOD. TO HELL WITH THEM. WHO WANTS JEWS?

Europe didn't unite and say, "Hey everyone, you take 10,000, we'll take 20,000..."

No. Wherever they went, the Jews were beaten and killed, and only allowed if they were entertainers, or if they were shopkeepers who would be open long hours, or if they were so brilliant at medicine or law, they could be of service. Otherwise, FUCK OFF.

America, with its Statue of Liberty, said, "Oh, ok." BUT America was not accepting welfare cases.

Jews were put to work like slaves, and worked 12 hours in the garment district. They lived in hovels on the Lower East Side. If they were brilliant, they still might be peddling, selling crap out of a pushcart, because there were quotas on Jews. Yes, even places like New York University would cross off Jewish names. Even Jews training to be doctors were held to a higher standard and there were "restricted" clubs and "restricted" apartments.

Now? Now a "refugee" is any greedy swine that has fouled his trough and wants someplace clean to oink in.

Just declare you want "in" and you don't even have to learn the language or customs. Just demand welfare, a place to live, free medical care, and everything else. Be a criminal, even, and declare racism as soon as you're arrested, and off you go.

Who are these fucking Syrian "refugees?" It seems like they're just lazy spoiled peasants who don't like their government, don't like the rebels either, and want to run away. At best, they're cowards. At worse, they're greedy pigs and mixed in with them are a bunch of ISIS wolves.

And what's next?

Assuming these Syrians are all going to convert to Christianity, learn the language of the adopted country, and not breed jihadi lunatics, WHAT next? Anybody want to travel to colorful Scotland, Ireland or Holland and see a bunch of cloaked dark-faced Muslims playing bagpipes, serving up haggis, talking in a brogue, telling proudly about tulips or windmills?

Oh well. So no nations on Earth will be individual, have a culture, or be proud of their heritage. Let's move toward every nation being the same, and all eating McDonalds and Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken and drinking Coca Cola.

And what about MORE refugees? What about the Somalians? The Ghana-rias? The Ivory Coastals? The Ethiopians? What happens when they decide THEY are refugees, and they begin to march toward Europe? Who is stopping them and telling them to go back?

What I'd like to see is the New York Times office completely swamped by rats and roaches. I'd tell the staff, "Sorry, no extermination is allowed. These are God's creatures. They are REFUGEES. You can't be cruel and kill them or cage them."

How about a few stat-maps? Everybody loves those. Let's chart who is cruel and nasty and who is nice. Ha ha, Germany is SO nice. Great Britain? Blimey, what a cheap and flinty bunch!