Majorityrights News > Category: Polish Nationalism

Diversity Macht Frei, “It’s too late for Germany’: German feminist SJW admits she got it wrong on immigration, plans to emigrate to Poland”:

In 2012 Rebecca Sommer founded the refugee aid association Arbeitsgruppe Flucht + Menschen-Rechte (AG F+M) [Working Group Asylum + Human Rights]. At the end of 2015, this artist, photographer and journalist and documentary maker applauded Angela Merkel’s decision to open German’s borders to the “refugees” who had been blocked in Hungary, despite the vacuum effect this would create. “At that time I wanted to help everyone and truly believed that all these people were fleeing hell and were in a state of complete distress,” the German activist explained in an article published by the conservative Polish weekly Do Rzeczy on 15 January, discussing how she woke up to reality.

In 2015, her NGO had almost 300 volunteers who were giving German courses to the new arrivals.

…”I thought their medieval view was going to change with time…but after having seen these situations occur repeatedly and observing what was happening around me, as a volunteer, I have had to recognise that the Muslim refugees have grown up with values that are totally different, they have undergone brainwashing from childhood on and are indoctrinated by Islam and absolutely do not intend to adopt our values. Worse, they regard we infidels with disdain and arrogance.”

“It was a jarring perception when I noticed that these people I had helped, who were eating, drinking, dancing and laughing with me, who didn’t pray, who didn’t go to the mosque, who didn’t respect Ramadan, who made fun of religion and deeply religious people, called me ‘the stupid German whore’ when they were eating my food and were in my garden.”

…Rebecca Sommer says she is not an isolated case, that many other volunteers also came ultimately to have the same perception and that there are now far fewer volunteers ready to work with the new arrivals today in Germany. She also acknowledges that, through their numbers, these Muslim immigrants pose a threat to the German way of life, and that this will get worse with family reunification.
She also told the Polish weekly magazine Do Rzeczy that she personally knows Germans who are getting ready to emigrate to Poland because they had have enough, and she added: “If Poland and Hungary do not give in on this question, you could become countries that some Germans and French will flee to. You could become islands of stability in Europe.”

Islands of stability but also democracy because Rebecca Sommer also notes that democracy no longer really exists in Germany….When the human rights activists wanted to denounce forced conversions to Islam in Indonesia, her account was blocked.

This Berlin woman no longer dares to go out on her own on New Year’s Eve and she has already been attacked five times by men speaking Arabic!

She thinks it is already too late for Germany and she plans to emigrate for her retirement. Political Islam is present everywhere, including in the government, in political parties, in the police and schools. With family reunification, millions of additional Muslim immigrants are going to come. In the German capital where she lives, entire districts are already dominated by the Muslim community which forms a parallel society.

source

Correction: I spoke too soon about Timothy Snyder being an anti-nationalist, and I did that in light of his estimation that Britain and France were not really nations while they were empires, that their “nationhoods” were creations of post hoc political convenience. Nevertheless, to say that he is against nationalism would not be correct, since in fact he sees the weak state and the destruction of the state as that which abets genocide.

Snyder’s characterology of how Putin’s and Trump’s positions have emerged in fairly conjoint construction is uncanny…

As such he does make of himself a useful idiot in that he exposes one side of the YKW equation - the specific origin and characters of their right wing cohorts, Putin and Trump.

Youtube, “A Republic, If You Can Keep It: Masha Gessen Talks Autocracy with Timothy Snyder”, 12 July 2017:
       
As his fellow Trump/Putin critic, (((Masha Gessen))) would suggest, we would miss the truth of these characters, more like mafia dons than statesmen, if we were to maintain a policy of sheer fact checking. Because essentially, they don’t care. They both have a cynical world view and it is about power - logical consistency is for the naive. By contrast to that, one must have the courage and confidence to tell the true story -

Youtube, “Chatham House Primer: Modern Authoritarianism”, 30 Oct 2017:

This guy, (Ivan) Ilyin, I think was a very interesting philosopher; he is kind of the grandfather of the current Russian “fascism.”  Current Russian “fascists” like Alexander Dugin are a little jealous of him and say that he just serves a technical function in the Kremlin and he’s not that interesting. I think he’s interesting. One of his ideas is that for Russia to have a leader, that person has to be free of history, which is a high demand.

He (Ilyin) was a right-wing Hegelian ...his whole idea was that god created the world and that was a mistake. It’s an interesting view, those of you who know anything about Orthodox theology know that there are references… god created the world, it was a mistake, the factuality of the world is itself sinful, history is itself sinful, contingency, to use the technical term, contingency is sinful, all these facts and passions we have, they’re inherently sinful.

So, in order for Russia to be rescued it has to be rescued by someone who is somehow clean of history.

It has to be a redeemer who comes from beyond history.

What I find so interesting is that this actually happened in a way.

The place that is not history is fiction.

When Mr. Putin came to power, Surkov and the others in the Kremlin literally had a kind of game and then a public opinion poll where they tried to figure out which Russian fictional character would be most attractive to Russians. They came up with this character (Max Otto von) Stierlitz, who was a double agent and a person in a novel, and in a film, in the 70’s, who was a Russian spy who spoke German. That’s why they chose Mr. Putin. So, he literally .. this true people! This is the world we live in. So he literally came from fiction.

Then you connect Mr. Putin to Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump is Not a successful real estate developer! That never happened. Mr. Trump bankrupted six companies. He owed billions of dollars to, I think, seventy banks. Until, low and behold, some nice Russians came and said, ‘hey, why don’t you just put your name on some buildings and we’ll give you money for that, and we will build the buildings - which then became his business plan. Which is a great (((business plan))) if you can get it.

Rob Goldstone relaxing, chatting with Trump

The Miss Universe pageant. How did he run (((the Miss Universe pageant)))? The Russians gave him twenty million dollars and he showed up. Which is a great business plan if you can do it.

So, a fictional Russian character comes to power and then creates a fictional American character called Mr. Trump. This happened!

Once the Russians had bailed him out, he then appeared on American television, on celebrity apprentice, playing a successful real estate developer - which he never was.

But as a character, he was great, he could say, “you’re fired!” in a really convincing way.

So, one fictional character then creates another fictional character. And that fictional character also comes to power. ..with the help of all kinds of fictional devices, mostly delivered through the internet.  So there really is an interesting problem of (((genre))) going on in our life.

Though this article posted at Alt-Right doesn’t do much good with the topic - quite to the contrary, it seems suspiciously conciliatory and accepting - the headline is nevertheless accurate:

“Martha Stewart And Snoop Dogg Herald End Of An Old America.”

Indeed.

Alt-Right Guest Blogger, “Martha Stewart And Snoop Dogg Herald End Of An Old America”,

The ol’ gal just had to try and stay hip and relevant.

Submitted by Norman Burgundy

As many of us are nervously watching our waists while eye-balling leftover pumpkin pie and other fatty foods in the fridge in the odd, frantic period between Thanksgiving and Christmas (which used to be called “Advent”), Martha Stewart, the queen of American home decor and official gatekeeper of (mostly white) American holiday dinners, has inaugurated the 2017 holiday season by launching a television show with a former convicted drug dealer, pimp, and hip artist who claims to smoke 80 marijuana joints a day.

Surprising?

Yes, but, upon further reflection, not really, for the story of the rise and fall of Martha Stewart from fashion model and media mogul to single and visibly depressed old lady is the story of the rise and fall of America in our boring, depressed, and degenerate but still tolerably tasteful age.

Rising from a notoriously hot-tempered basement run catering service boss to the head of a global media empire, Martha Stewart, ironically the daughter of Polish parents, kept alive the last flames of American wholesome WASPness in the 90s and into the 21st century. Martha’s flagship magazine Martha Stewart Living, filled with recipes for “Slow Cooker Pot-Roast” and guides for “Reusable Lunch Bags” became a sort of Bible for stuff white people like and made sure that the comfy cozy Eisenhauer America won by the greatest generation at least made it through era of George W Bush and the iphone.

Martha Stewart in her prime was a living icon for American whiteness. Martha had a knack for mom things that made them cool and even “feminist”–but not in a gross cat lady librarian sort of way. Martha transcended political barriers and made even such boring white people things like “DIY Lip Balm” and “Preserving Fall Leaves” seem chic and attractive. Her holiday specials were always splendidly and triumphantly white with tables full of “Perfect Roast Turkey” and the very goyish “Glazed Holiday Ham.”

I will take my point of departure from there. Why?

Because the article goes on to take a strangely sympathetic, hypnotic and reassuring position - for the enemies of our people. For example -

On the show, despite Martha moments, Snoop’s black cat charm largely makes Martha look like the confused and angry white neighbor who is forced to deal with the nouveau riche homeboy next door.

- and the article concludes:

On the campy and awkward, “Martha and Snoopy’s Potluck Dinner Party,” Martha Stewart, once the platinum blonde queen of the American home, has become like a formerly mighty circus bear who is awkwardly trotted out in front of a nervous crowd that revers more the memory of what she once was than what is before their very eyes.

However, at home on the pages of her elegant magazine and her very tasteful and very, um, white-looking website, Martha is still Martha, ready with a tray of delicious holiday treats and a perfected warmly WASP accent.

While our country goes down the diversity drain and Christmas seems less Christmasy every year, we can be sure that all of Martha Stewart’s days will be merry and bright and all her Christmases will be very white.

So lets get down to brass tacks:

One might have left Martha Stewart a possible out, that she was going-with a bit of nervous levity in the Justin Bieber roast, fraught as it was with negro gutter “humor”, in order to ease past a particularly straight-forward and sickening query of the negro, Snoop Dogg, under the guise of more “humor.”

What I (Snoop Dogg) wanna’ know is have you (Natasha Leggero) ever sucked a black dick, you fox? No, I really wanna know! Martha Stewart (applauds and smiles, apparently thinks this is delightful) along with plenty of Whites in attendance.

Natasha Leggero

Though he admitted that he seriously wanted to know.

The episode that I’m referring to was at the Justin Bieber roast. You can’t find it on Youtube now. Someone must have realized (unlike Martha) that it was that offensive:

Snoop Dogg: “What I wanna’ know is have you ever sucked a black dick, you fox?”

Martha Stewart: claps, smiles and laughs.

Snoop Dogg: “No, I really wanna know!”

For Martha Stewart to go on some years later to become a full-on ally in his cause, to become a conduit of mulatto supremacist b.j. machines?

After Martha Stewart was born in the funk of Jersey City, New Jersey, her family moved to the all White Nutley, New Jersey - a White enclave protected as such despite the climate of “civil rights” and black nightmare cities such as East Orange and Newark, encroaching just adjacent to Nutley.

She took this for granted and there is no excuse for her. She is a disgusting pig.

In a most public forum and on stage, what Snoop Dogg would like to know from Natasha Leggero.

Am I stodgy traditionalist? Hardly. But I do remember a time (as recently as the 70’s and early 80’s) when you did not see White woman with blacks - not in public, anyway, because White men would not accept it, and White women knew it wasn’t cool, they had a sense of how irresponsibly destructive it would be. I live in a city, a White city, where it is still uncommon to see these pairings. That is to say, I know that it is possible and realistic to not have to put up with this. And that’s the way it should be with our countries: If women want to be with blacks, if they think it it’s funny, a light and breezy matter, their absolute prerogative in dalliance, let them go live with them - in their countries, under their governments. Don’t dare make us support these pairings and their offspring.

Mateusz Morawiecki. third from left, at the Warsaw Zoo holding a document honoring rescuers of Jews, Sept., 2017. (Courtesy of From the Depths)

JTA, “New Polish prime minister refers to rescue of ‘Jewish brothers’ in his inaugural address”, 12 Dec 2017:

(JTA) — In his first speech as Poland’s prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki said that non-Jewish Poles who saved their “Jewish brothers” during the Holocaust represent the “essence of what it means to be Polish.”

Morawiecki, a former banker who in September spoke about his Jewish roots – two of his aunts are Jewish — in a speech about rescuers of Jews in Warsaw, presented his inaugural address Tuesday to the parliament.

The remark about Jews was unusual because of the reference as brethren and the de facto head of state including the subject in an inaugural address.

Morawiecki, who was the finance minister before his promotion in a surprising reshuffle in the government of the right-wing ruling Law and Justice Party, spoke mostly about the economy and foreign relations.

But in speaking about the national identity, he said: “The deep community dimension is inscribed in our tradition: Assistance to people in flight, Żegota saving our Jewish brothers and Solidarity. This is real proof of what Polishness is and what the community is.”

Żegota is the name of a Polish resistance group that helped Jews during the Holocaust. Solidarity was an anti-communist movement, in which Morawiecki’s father was active during Poland’s subjugation to the Soviet Union.

Morawiecki, 49, succeeds Beata Szydło, also of the right-wing party, who has served in the post since 2015.

Morawiecki, who was not even a member of Law and Justice two years ago, joined the government as minister for economic development in 2015 before adding the post of finance minister last year.

His Jewish roots were known in Poland. Morawiecki spoke about it in some detail earlier this year at a ceremony at the Warsaw Zoo honoring a former zoo director and his wife, Jan and Antonina Żabiński, who saved hundreds of Jews there, and other rescuers.

Polish non-Jews killed at least 1,500 Jews in a series of pogroms during and directly after the Holocaust, according to the Polish chief rabbi, Michael Schudrich

READ MORE...

60,000 join nationalist march carrying racist banners and chanting for ‘White Europe.’

An estimated 60,000 people turned out in Warsaw for the march, with many chanting ‘clean blood’, ‘pure Poland’ and ‘White Poland’ and carrying posters with the words: ‘White Europe of brotherly nations.’

The Guardian, “‘White Europe’: 60,000 nationalists march on Poland’s independence day”, 12 Nov 2017:

60,000 join far-right march carrying racist banners and chanting for ‘White Europe’

An estimated 60,000 people turned out in Warsaw for the march, with many chanting ‘clean blood’, ‘pure Poland’ and ‘White Poland’ and carrying posters with the words: ‘White Europe of brotherly nations.

Demonstrators with faces covered chanted “Pure Poland, White Poland!” and “Refugees get out!”. A banner hung over a bridge that read: “Pray for Islamic Holocaust.”

Metro, “60,000 join nationalist march carrying racist banners and chanting for ‘white Europe,” 12 Nov 2017:

Tens of thousands of people carried symbols, religious slogans on banners and made racist chants during a march in Poland on Saturday.

An estimated 60,000 people turned out in Warsaw for the march, with many chanting ‘clean blood’, ‘pure Poland’ and ‘white Poland’ and carrying posters with the words: ‘white Europe of brotherly nations’.

Poland’s independence day celebrations turned ugly this weekend, as tens of thousands of nationalist protesters took to the streets, chanting anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish slogans and setting off flares.

The day celebrates the re-birth of Poland in November 1918, 123 years after the Prussian, Habsburg and Russian empires carved up Poland among themselves and erased it from the map of Europe. CNN.

Poland is correct to denounce Richard Spencer in his neo-Molotov-Ribbentrop larp.

While the Polish government is not perfectly articulate of its reasons to denounce Richard Spencer for his advocacy of a counter productive world view, they are not far off the mark and not wrong to reject him either.

Typical of American right wingers, Spencer is nursing a neo-Germanophilic world view, overly sympathetic to the German imperialism of the world wars (and antagonistic to Great Britain’s ‘interference’), with a new twist that would larp and valence a re-empowered German / Russian axis -  i.e., a newly got up Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement for an “imperium”, i.e., imperialism that would run rough shod over the interests of many necessary allies - Hungary rejected him for the same reason Poland rejects him for the same reason Britain rejected him for the same reason Japan would reject him (for the same reason all of Asia would reject him for the same reason Zionism embraces him, for the quid pro quo reasoning that comprador wielding right wing enterprises embrace him) etc. - while his larped empire (Lisbon to Vladivastok) would be governed by whom? Apparently he would depend heavily on working with Jewish interests to facilitate (maneuver) his Russo-Germanic grand civic Euro larp, in Duginesque delusion of grandeur - a delusion coddled by ((())).

News Week, “Richard Spencer Is Too Racist for Poland’s Right-Wing Government”, 27 Oct 2017:

Poland’s right-wing government doesn’t want white supremacist Richard Spencer to visit the Eastern European country, calling him a “threat” to democracy.

Spencer was scheduled to speak at a conference organized by Poland’s far right to celebrate Polish Independence Day on November 11, but the country’s Foreign Ministry condemned the alt-right leader, whose condemnation of diversity has found support among neo-Nazis, whose ideological predecessors invaded Poland and killed millions during World War II.

“As a country which was one of the biggest victims of Nazism, we believe that the ideas promoted by Mr. Spencer and his followers could pose a threat to all those who hold dear the values of human rights and democracy,” the Polish Foreign Ministry said in a statement, adding that Spencer’s views are in conflict with Poland’s legal order.

Poland is not beyond criticism in its brand and particular expressions of nationalism, but Richard Spencer is highly dubious in his imperial larp; and the Poles are correct to denounce Spencer and like apologists for the imperialist aspirations of Nazi Germany and the casualties it left in the wake of its aspired imperialism, relevantly in this case, the Poland that came back not as “a gift of Woodrow Wilson”, but through the endurance and perseverance of Polish nationalism through 123 years in exile during the tri-partition; and then again through 50 years in exile during the Nazi and Soviet regimes.

Gatestone Inst., “Germany Heading for Four More Years of Pro-EU, Open-Door Migration Policies”, 8 Sept 2017:

  The policy positions of Merkel and Schulz on key issues are virtually identical: Both candidates are committed to strengthening the European Union, maintaining open-door immigration policies, pursuing multiculturalism and quashing dissent from the so-called far right.

  Merkel and Schulz both agree that there should be no upper limit on the number of migrants entering Germany.

  Merkel’s grand coalition backed a law that would penalize social media giants, including Facebook, Google and Twitter, with fines of €50 million ($60 million) if they fail to remove offending content from their platforms within 24 hours. Observers say the law is aimed at silencing critics of Merkel’s open-door migration policy.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), is on track win a fourth term in office after polls confirmed she won the first and only televised debate with her main election opponent, Martin Schulz, leader of the Social Democratic Union Party (SDP).

A survey for the public broadcaster ARD showed that 55% of viewers thought Merkel was the “more convincing” candidate during the debate, which took place on September 3; only 35% said Schulz came out ahead.

Many observers agreed that Schulz failed to leverage the debate to revive his flagging campaign, while others noted that Schulz’s positions on many issues are virtually indistinguishable from those held by Merkel.

Rainald Becker, an ARD commentator, described the debate as, “More a duet than a duel.”

“Merkel came out as sure, Schulz was hardly able to land a punch,” wrote Heribert Prantl, a commentator at Süddeutsche Zeitung. “The candidate is an honorable man. But being honorable alone will not make him chancellor.”

Christian Lindner, leader of the classical liberal Free Democrats, compared the debate to “scenes from a long marriage, where there is the occasional quarrel, but both sides know that they have to stick together in the future, too.”

Television presenter Günther Jauch, writing in Bild, said he had hoped to “at least understand what differentiates Merkel and Schulz in political terms. Instead, it was just a conversation between two political professionals who you suspect could both work pretty seamlessly in the same government.”

Radio and television host Thomas Gottschalk said that the two candidates agreed with each other too often: “They were both always nodding their heads when the other was speaking.”

Germany’s general election is scheduled for September 24. If voters went to the polls now, Merkel’s CDU, together with its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), would win 39%, according to a September 4 Politbarometer survey conducted for the public broadcaster ZDF.

Coming in second, Schulz’s SDP would win 22%; the classical liberal Free Democrats (FDP) 10%; the far-left Linke 9%; the Greens 8% and the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) 8%.

The poll also found that 57% of respondents said they preferred that Merkel serve another term; only 28% favored Schulz to become the next chancellor. Nevertheless, half of Germany’s 60 million voters are said to be undecided, and some pollsters believe that the country’s huge non-voting population may determine the outcome.

As Merkel’s CDU/CSU is unlikely to emerge from the election with an absolute majority, the 2017 vote effectively revolves around the issue of coalition-building. If current polling holds, Merkel, who has vowed to serve a full four years if re-elected, will have two main options.

Merkel could form another so-called grand coalition, an alliance of Germany’s two biggest parties, namely the CDU/CSU and the SPD.

Merkel currently governs with a grand coalition and has done so during two of her three terms in office.

Both the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats have said they hope to end the grand coalition and lead the government with smaller partners after the September election. After the debate, however, many observers believe a grand coalition between Merkel and Schulz is more probable than not.

Merkel’s second option would be to form a three-way coalition with the Greens and the FDP, which served as junior coalition partner to the CDU/CSU for almost half of Germany’s post-war history. Merkel has already ruled out forming a coalition with either the Linke or the AfD.

In any event, the policy positions of Merkel and Schulz on key issues are virtually identical: Both candidates are committed to strengthening the European Union, maintaining open-door immigration policies, pursuing multiculturalism and quashing dissent from the so-called far right.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel (right) and her main election opponent, Martin Schulz (left), whose policy positions on key issues are virtually identical. (Image source: European Parliament/Flickr)

Merkel and Schulz are ardent Europhiles and both are committed to more European federalism. During an August 12 campaign speech in Dortmund, for example, Merkel described the European Union as the “greatest peace project” in history and vowed that she would never turn her back on this “wonderful project.”

Previously, Merkel said:

  “We need more Europe, we need not only a monetary union, but we also need a so-called fiscal union, in other words more joint budget policy. And we need most of all a political union — that means we need to gradually give competencies to Europe and give Europe control.”

Merkel has also endorsed the idea of a European Monetary Fund to deal with sovereign defaults by eurozone countries:

  “It could make us even more stable and allow us to show the world that we have all the mechanisms in our own portfolio of the euro zone to be able to react well to unexpected situations.”

Schulz has argued that the EU must be preserved at any cost:

  “We are at a historical juncture: A growing number of people are declaring what has been achieved over the past decades in Europe to be wrong. They want to return to the nation-state. Sometimes there is even a blood and soil rhetoric that for me is starkly reminiscent of the interwar years of the past century, whose demons we are still all too familiar with. We brought these demons under control through European structures, but if we destroy those structures, the demons will return. We cannot allow this to happen.”

Schulz has opposed the idea of holding national referendums on leaving the EU:

  “Referendums have always posed a threat when it comes to EU policy, because EU policy is complicated. They are an opportunity for those from all political camps who like to oversimplify things.”

Schulz has also voiced optimism that the British decision to leave the European Union would facilitate the creation of a European Army:

  “In the fields of security and defense policy, although the EU loses a key member state, paradoxically such a separation could give the necessary impulse for a closer integration of the remaining member states.”

During the September 3 debate, Schulz declared that he would end Turkey’s accession talks to join the European Union because of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s authoritarianism. Merkel initially said she opposed such a move but then suddenly changed her mind. Unexpectedly, Merkel said: “The fact is clear that Turkey should not become an EU member.”

On the issue of migration, Schulz and Merkel differ on procedure, not principle. During the debate, for example, Schulz accused Merkel of failing to involve the European Union in her 2015 decision to open German borders to more than a million migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Merkel said that although some mistakes had been made, she would take the same decision again.

In fact, Merkel and Schulz both agree that there should be no upper limit on the number of migrants entering Germany: “On the issue of an upper limit, my position is clear,” Merkel told ARD television. “I won’t accept one.”

Schulz has said:

  “A numerical cap is not a response to the refugee issue, even if it is agreed upon in a European context. What do we do with the first refugee who comes to the European frontier and has no quota available? Do we send him back to perhaps a sure death? As long as this question is not resolved, such a discussion makes no sense.”

Schulz believes the European Union should have a greater role in migration policymaking:

  “What we need is a European right of immigration and asylum. The refugee crisis shows us clearly that we cannot give a national response to a global phenomenon such as the refugee movements. This is only possible in a European context.”

Merkel has criticized Hungary for failing to show “solidarity” in aiding refugees. She has also vowed to punish Poland for its refusal to take in more migrants from the Muslim world:

  “As much as I wish for good relations with Poland — they are our neighbor and I will always strive for this given the importance of our ties — we can’t simply keep our mouth shut in order to keep the peace. This goes to the very foundations of our cooperation within the European Union.”

Schulz vowed that, if elected chancellor, he would push for the EU to cut subsidies to countries that do not take in refugees: “With me as chancellor, we won’t accept that solidarity as a principle is questioned.”

Meanwhile, Merkel’s grand coalition backed a law that would penalize social media giants, including Facebook, Google and Twitter, with fines of €50 million ($60 million) if they fail to remove offending content from their platforms within 24 hours. Observers say the law is aimed at silencing critics of Merkel’s open-door migration policy.

Like Merkel, Schulz has reserved his worst vitriol for the anti-immigration AfD, whose leaders he has described as “rat catchers” (Rattenfänger) who are “trying to profit from the plight of refugees.” He has also called them “shameful and repulsive.”

In an August 22 interview with Bild, Merkel answered critics of her desire to continue in power by saying that the longer she rules, the better she gets: “I’ve decided to run for another four years and believe that the mix of experience and curiosity and joy that I have could make the next four years good ones.”

Note that according to EU rules, when migrants are granted permission to stay in Germany they are free to move anywhere within the EU after three years.

Related Articles:

Germany Introduces Forced Integration

EP President Schulz: Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the Jewish people.

WSJ,“Hungary and Slovakia Must Admit Refugees as Part of European Union Relocation Program, Court Rules”, 6 Sept 2017:

Ruling comes amid rising tensions between the EU’s Western and Eastern members over whether the bloc has the authority to resettle refugees.

The EUs top court on Wednesday ruled that Hungary and Slovakia must admit migrants as part of a refugee relocation program, a significant victory for Brussels that resurfaces deep disagreements over immigration policy within the bloc.

The ruling comes amid rising tensions between the EU’s Western and Eastern members over whether the bloc has the authority to resettle refugees in countries whose politicians have called for refugee bans, an issue which has roiled politics across the region since a major influx of people two summers ago.

In Hungary, a senior official said the government wouldn’t accept the ruling. The prime minister and his cabinet were in a meeting immediately after the news broke to discuss legal and political options to oppose it.

Prime Minister Viktor Orban has consistently rejected the idea of refugee quotas and instead asked the EU to contribute to a border fence his government erected to prevent migrants from entering the country. European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker in an interview with the German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung on Wednesday rejected that request and said Hungary must show solidarity with other nations in dealing with the refugee burden.

“ECJ confirms relocation scheme valid. Time to work in unity and implement solidarity in full,” tweeted EU migration commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos.

Officials in Slovakia said they would soon issue a more detailed response but initially appeared to accept the ruling. “Of course we respect the decision made by the court,” said Slovak Foreign Ministry spokesman Peter Susko.

In its judgment, the European Court of Justice rejected legal arguments brought by the two countries and said that the EU was right to set up an emergency relocation program in 2015, at the height of the migration crisis that swept the continent. The program was aimed at redistributing more evenly across the bloc up to 120,000 asylum seekers who had arrived in Greece and Italy. Only 28,000 people were moved under that program, which was supposed to be completed this autumn.

In 2015 the program was adopted by a majority vote with Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Romania opposing. Poland at the time agreed to the program, but a new government in Warsaw subsequently changed course and refused to take in any refugees. Poland also backed Slovakia and Hungary in the proceedings before court.

The case is a likely to fuel ongoing spats that Poland and Hungary are engaged in with the European Commission, the bloc’s executive branch. The fights center on what Brussels considers democracy-eroding measures being put in place in the two countries. The commission has separately started legal proceedings against Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic for refusing to accept any asylum seekers under the relocation plan. If they don’t change course by the time a ruling is made, the countries could face financial penalties.

The Wednesday ruling follows a legal opinion by the court’s top lawyer, who said in late July that the two countries’ case should be dismissed.

        ...if there was ever a doubt that the European Union is evil, that removes it.