Finally: Belgian Minister Suggests Turning the Boats Around

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
May 12, 2017

It is so, so funny to me that this is the picture of the guy they are using in the Reuters article about this. It is definitely a statement that a Beglium would make in a brown-furrowed, chin-scratching type of way.


A major figure in a major government finally said it:

“What reason, specifically, can we not just turn the boats around, rather than “rescuing” them and taxing them from a mile off the coast of Libya to the Italian shore?”

It is one of those questions that nobody is every supposed to ask, because there is no conceivable answer to it.

Similar to a whole list of questions Donald Trump asked during his campaign, where both parties were like “WHAT DID HE SAY HE’S NOT ALLOWED TO SAY THAT!!!111”

I should at some point come up with a list of “obvious questions that no one is allowed to ask because they undermine the lack of stable foundation behind the entire modern Jewish paradigm of civilization and human existence itself.”

In a very real sense, “why can’t we just turn the boats around” is not a practical question anymore, but an existential, philosophical question.


The European Union must not accept African migrants who pay people smugglers to cross the Mediterranean, but turn them back, Belgium’s migration minister Theo Francken told Reuters on Thursday.

Only then could the bloc open up legal pathways for refugees and migrants into Europe and fly them in under an annual cap, he said, rather than get more of the uncontrolled influx that saw 1.6 million people reach its shores in 2014-2016.

“This system is totally crazy and is not working. We have to fix this by being very clear: taking a ticket on a smuggler boat does not give you free entrance into the European continent,” said Francken, who is with the Flemish nationalist N-VA party.

“The current system is totally inhumane,” he said, adding it enriched international criminal networks dealing with people smuggling at the expense of thousands dying on the sea crossing.

That’s another thing you’re never supposed to say under any circumstances.

The NGO human traffickers and the UN and EU groups that fund them have framed this as “rescuing” people who would otherwise drown, while back in reality, the only reason anyone gets on these boats is because they know there’s a 99% percent chance they’ll get picked up by “recurses” and taken to Europe as “refugees.”

So all of the “drownings” are a result of the rescue and “asylum” system itself.

No one was traveling across Africa to get in a dinghy in Libya before Merkel declared her “open Europe” plan.

For more on the concept at work here, read about why governments don’t negotiate with terrorists or kidnappers.

This is very, very basic stuff.

Francken made clear his comments referred to all Africans – north and sub-Saharan – and to those coming in smugglers’ boats, who make up the great majority of those sailing to Europe.

Some 50,000 have made it across the Mediterranean to Europe so far this year, most of them African migrants unlikely to win asylum in Europe.

As they flee acute poverty, they board flimsy smugglers’ boats in lawless Libya that are unfit for the voyage, are saved at sea by European rescue vessels, and get taken to Italy. EU laws now forbid sending them back to Libya, and repatriating those whose asylum cases fail is complicated.

Just one more time, this is where the NGO “rescuers” pick up the “migrants.”

It’s now been established by the Italian government that the NGO human traffickers have a direct line of communication with their human trafficking counterparts in Libya through which they schedule a pick-up time.

Francken said Europe applies humanitarian laws too broadly and people intercepted in the Mediterranean should be turned back, or disembarked in other African states like Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and Algeria.

“More legal routes, more resettlement, no problem. But it means we bring back the boats that leave illegally. It is one or the other,” he said. “It’s not about flying in real refugees and then accepting people from Nigeria and countries that have a low (asylum) recognition rate.”

“Do it for two weeks and it stops immediately. Nobody will pay thousands of euros to end up in Tunisia, Egypt or Morocco… The rumor with spread quickly that it has finished.”


Long and short of it right there.

Such push-backs are currently very controversial, with aid groups sounding alarm that they violate human rights by returning people who are already distressed and in dire circumstances to miserable prospects.

Yeah, that’s the entire counter-argument:

“It’s sad that they’re poor and any poor person from any poor country should be allowed to come live in Europe on welfare.”

They don’t deny that they’re a taxi service, they don’t deny that the boats would immediately stop coming if you started sending them back, they certainly don’t deny that it is their “rescue” policy that is leading to the drownings in the first place.

What’s more, they don’t explain how a policy that allows any poor nonwhite person come to Europe based exclusively on the fact that they are poor is sustainable on any level whatsoever.

Maybe these people don’t have Google?

The idea that it is possible to have infinity brown people forever is clearly insane.

That old guy with the marbles explained this long, long ago.

But again, the modern Jewish paradigm of civilization and human existence is based on a series of questions that you’re not allowed to ask.

That’s the core of the issue.

Join the discussion at TGKBBS