This week, Angela “Bulldog” Merkel attacked people like me as evil, saying that “populists” who oppose the coronavirus lockdown are “fact-deniers.”

Well, one of the main points that I have made, and that others against this lockdown have made, is that more people will die as a result of the lockdown than could ever die of the virus. I’ve focused on the number of people who are going to die from suicide and drug overdoses in Western countries as a result of having their lives destroyed by the lockdown. However, it is also true that many in the third world, particularly in really shitty countries that don’t produce their own food, will die of starvation.

The British charity group Oxfam, which is considered to be the global expert on global poverty, is now saying that more people will die of starvation in poor countries due to the lockdown than will die of the virus.

So, Merkel, you sickening, fat, evil dogfaced cunt – is Oxfam an organization of “fact-denying populists”? 

Is it, Merkel?

You stupid, evil pig – answer the question: is Oxfam an organization of “fact-denying populists”? 

The Guardian:

Millions of people are being pushed towards hunger by the coronavirus pandemic, which could end up killing more people through lack of food than from the illness itself, Oxfam has warned.

Closed borders, curfews and travel restrictions have disrupted food supplies and incomes in already fragile countries, forcing an extra million people closer to famine in Afghanistan and heightening the humanitarian disaster in Yemen, where two-thirds already live in hunger.

Note that “closed borders, curfews and travel restrictions” are not “a pandemic” – those are things done in response to an alleged pandemic. Unless we are talking about “the coronavirus pandemic of mass hysteria.”

One million more people are facing famine in Afghanistan as a result of coronavirus, according to a report from the charity. The number of people on the brink of famine in the country rose sharply from 2.5 million last September to 3.5 million in May, the result of border closures and the economic downturn in neighbouring Iran that caused a drop in home remittances by overseas workers.

Oxfam said that up to 12,000 people could die from hunger every day globally – 2,000 more than died from Covid-19 each day in April.

Along with Afghanistan, the charity identified Yemen, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Venezuela, the west African Sahel, Ethiopia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, and Haiti as extreme hunger hotspots.

“The knock-on impacts of Covid-19 are far more widespread than the virus itself, pushing millions of the world’s poorest people deeper into hunger and poverty. It is vital governments contain the spread of this deadly disease, but they must also prevent it killing as many – if not more – people from hunger,” said the chief executive of Oxfam GB, Danny Sriskandarajah.

“For many people, Covid-19 comes as a crisis on top of a crisis. To break the cycle of hunger, governments must build fairer and more sustainable food systems that ensure small-scale producers and workers earn a living wage.”

Oxfam said countries with existing problems, such as South Sudan and Syria, were already seeing hunger worsen but there was also concern for middle-income countries such as India and Brazil.

Mass unemployment was affecting all countries, but informal labourers were suffering the most, often unable to travel to work.

Travel restrictions were also hitting food supplies by preventing farmers from hiring workers and small-scale producers from accessing their own fields.

Just ignore where they say “the pandemic” is responsible – because they are not talking about any pandemic, they are talking about measures that were employed by global governments allegedly to manage an alleged pandemic. They are assuming that these measures were a necessary and unavoidable result of the pandemic.

But if the measures caused more deaths than they saved, they obviously were not actually necessary, and were in fact totally destructive and insane.

I’ll answer my question to Merkel for her, since she will no doubt refuse to comment: yes, according to her definition, anyone who tells the truth about this lockdown is a “fact-denying populist,” which means that Oxfam, given that they are saying the same thing that I’ve said with regards to the number of people who will die as a result of the lockdown as opposed to the number who will die as a result of the virus, is a “fact-denying populist” organization.

I am so angry at that speech by Angela Merkel that no other human being, unless they enter into my brain, will ever be able to understand how angry I am.

I suppose I should be just as angry at British Oxfam for saying both that more people will die as a result of the lockdown than of the virus, while still presenting the claim that the lockdown was necessary to fight the virus, but I’m not. This doesn’t come across as malicious, but rather as stupid and confused. Plus, I’m sure that the people putting together this report were thinking, “I guess it probably would have been better if we’d just not done this lockdown…” – but they surely can’t say it. They can, however, lay out the facts which lead any person to that conclusion.

The other harsh fact of reality is that when we cut through all of the propaganda and hoaxes, the overwhelming majority of people who died “from the virus” were in their 80s. The average age internationally appears to be 82. The men who are going to be dying of suicide and drug overdoses in the West will be in their 20s, 30s and 40s. The people who will starve in these third world countries will be all ages, including children. These will be many people who had their whole lives ahead of them, unlike a person in their 80s in an old folks’ home who was just waiting around to die anyway.

These are the facts. Anyone who denies these facts is a fact-denying neoliberal, who supported this lockdown either because they’re stupid and they do whatever they’re told, or because they understood it was being used to greatly transform Western civilization into something different than it was. They are creating a society with an absolute divide between the ultra-rich and the poor, where the people do not have any freedoms, where the white middle class is a thing of the past and the huddled masses gather to beg the government to feed them.

They will take their government soup and boiled water rations and scurry off to some dark and damp place to inject themselves with the only thing on earth that can bring them peace, and then they will die. Their deaths will make way for a new age of mankind, dominated by creatures which barely meet the definition of “mankind.”

Then, the overlords will laugh.

Well.

We’ve got ourselves another narrative crisis here, kids.

New York Times:

When Peter Dalglish, a lauded humanitarian worker, built a sleek cabin near a Nepalese village of rutted roads and hills ribbed with rice paddies, locals knew virtually nothing about him.

But over several years, Mr. Dalglish, a Canadian, endeared himself to many in the community, greeting villagers in Nepali, offering chocolates from Thailand to children playing in the forest and helping people rebuild their homes destroyed by devastating earthquakes in 2015.

The good will was shattered last month when the police swarmed around Mr. Dalglish’s home, placed a gun to his head and arrested him on charges of raping at least two boys, 12 and 14.

Suddenly, villagers were on edge, worried about how far the betrayal — and abuse — may have stretched.

You can go read the guy’s Wikipedia – he’s like, one of the world’s top figures in doing these third world children’s aid programs.

He’s been working in these aid programs since the 80s.

He’s worked for the UN, directly, in charge of some kinds of children’s thing.

He’s been celebrated as a hero by Justin Trudeau.

He’s a member of the Order of Canada.

One of the biggest “help the children” celebrities on the planet, if not the single biggest.

And clearly, he got involved in this industry specifically because he was interested in little boys – it wasn’t an interest that developed afterward.

So this brings into question the entire concept of these third world human rights children’s aid programs, and the motivation behind them.

These people get caught molesting children all the time.

Recently, they made a big deal out of British Oxfam aid workers having sex with adult paid hookers in Haiti, something that wasn’t illegal. In fact, the organization didn’t even ban the use of prostitutes by staff. There were no allegations that any children were involved – and it had happened in 2010, and apparently everyone had known about it all along.

Look – if some guy works for Apple and goes to China to inspect the factories and visits a brothel while he’s there, is that a scandal? If you go to a hooker bar in Asia it is filled with businessmen on business trips. I mean, you can go into like, the morality of prostitution in the most general sense, I guess. But wow.

Why was the Oxfam thing a thing?

Well.

The Oxfam Haiti scandal blew up as this huge thing in February – meanwhile, the same month, a former high level UN official said that Unicef is filled with pedophiles.

Sunday Times:

UN staff have carried out thousands of rapes around the world, a former senior official has claimed.

Andrew MacLeod, who was chief of operations at the UN’s Emergency Co-ordination Centre, said that “predatory” abusers used development jobs to get to vulnerable women and children.

He estimated that 60,000 rapes had been carried out by UN staff in the past decade, with 3,300 paedophiles working in the organisation and its agencies.

“There are tens of thousands of aid workers around the world with paedophile tendencies, but if you wear a Unicef T-shirt nobody will ask what you’re up to,” he told The Sun.

“You have the impunity to do whatever you want. It is endemic across the aid industry across the world.”

As a followup to the Times interview, MacLeod wrote an op-ed for the Independent where he went into more detail.

But it never got any attention, being overshadowed by the Oxfam Haiti thing where no crime was committed and no staff member even violated company policy.

So I think it was a purposeful distraction from the fact that the entire “aid” industry is a pedophile racket (which also makes a bunch of money for dem programs in the UN and ensures the continued explosion of third world populations).

This is just obvious.

Firstly, it is obvious that if you’re a pedophile, you’re going to figure out a lifestyle that allows access to children. Just like if you’re a heterosexual, you’re going to figure out a lifestyle that allows you access to women.

In the latter case, it generally means getting in shape, making money, dressing well, driving a nice car, etc.

In the former case, what are your options?

Well, you can become a priest. You can become a boarding school teacher. Or you can go work for UNICEF.

But there are reasons other than being a pedophile that you would become a priest or a boarding school teacher. I cannot think of a single reason other than being a pedophile that you would become a UNICEF worker. The pay is not good at all, you have relatively horrible living conditions, you are exposed to all kinds of third world diseases, etc., etc., etc.

If some grown man tells me he’s living in a third world shithole “helping children,” I’m just going to assume he’s a pedophile.

So this brings us to the larger issue of people who signal their moral goodness very often having ulterior motives.

Like with the Jews talking about how it is so morally good to import all of these savages into our countries, while in actual reality all they are trying to do is destroy the white race, which they view as a competitor.

It makes you think.

Top reason to volunteer for Oxfam: getting some good ol’ jungle lovin’.

Who’d have thought that the kind of people who make a career out of swindling money out of gullible liberals to “help” primitive monkey people would also be the kind of people with a sick sex fetish involving these same ape-like creatures?

It really boggles the mind.

BBC:

One of the UK’s biggest charities has denied allegations it covered up the use of prostitutes by its aid workers in Haiti.

Responding to a report in The Times newspaper, Oxfam admitted that the behaviour of some of its staff had been “totally unacceptable”.

I’m glad to learn that Oxfam also condemns bestiality.

The problem, I assume, is that if they established a policy forbidding sex with the jungle creatures they’re allegedly helping, their pool of volunteers would surely dry right up.

A group of Oxfam volunteers on their Haitian sex tourism trip aid mission.

But the charity said it had publicly announced an investigation into the allegations when they surfaced in 2011.

Several senior aid workers were dismissed following the investigation.

“The behaviour of some members of Oxfam staff uncovered in Haiti in 2011 was totally unacceptable, contrary to our values and the high standards we expect of our staff,” a spokeswoman said in a statement.

“Our primary aim was always to root out and take action against those involved and we publicly announced, including to media, both the investigation and the action we took as a result.”

This phenomenon is actually very common. Foreign aid workers have been caught again and again being involved in weird sex shit with the natives.

The UN is infamous for this.

Note the dates; these stories are 12 years apart.

A lot of these people don’t even believe in their ideological bullshit, and just enjoy going to these shitholes to signal their virtue and get their rocks off by banging the local wildlife.

These lonely bugmen will jump at the opportunity to have sex with anything, even if it’s STD-ridden negro primitives.

All they ever wanted… was free everything forever for them and their entire families and their dozens of future children, and all of the generations to come. Was that really so much to ask, white man? After… the Holocaust?

Oxfam is literally a bunch of crazy people.

LITERALLY.

Blaming white people for the “migrant crisis” is insane in the first place, but then claiming that these blacks are “fleeing” something other than a shitty third world country that’s poor just makes it so crazy you can’t even think of a response.

Also, they probably aren’t even being raped and tortured. If they are, then they need to ask themselves what the hell they’re doing in Libya, instead of their own safe home countries.

RT:

“Flawed policies” by EU governments amid the refugee crisis have left migrants trapped in “a living hell” in Libya, Oxfam said, adding that those trying to flee are being forced into slavery and face torture.

The report also criticized the recent proposal by French President Emmanuel Macron to open processing centers in Libya, with Oxfam saying they “risk entrapping more people in a lawless and dangerous state.”

Penny Lawrence, deputy chief executive at Oxfam GB, accused the UK of preventing asylum seekers from arriving from Africa. “The UK, along with other EU member states, has actively supported efforts to limit arrivals in Europe, trapping refugees and other migrants in a living hell,” she added. 

It’s your fault they went to Libya, WHITEY!

Actually that is sort of true. Merkel did invite them, lol.

But these Oxfam people are the vanguard. They are actually arguing for full open borders, which is completely insane. That would mean at least a billion people, possibly two billion, coming to Europe to live in welfare.

It just isn’t physically possible.

BUT – this serves as a point of discussion. They hold the far left, trying to keep the Overton Window over there. This gives more reasonable progressives room to maneuver.

Sort of like what I do with the right on the Daily Stormer.

Think on that.