Give Hate a Chance Part II

Let us consider further the positive aspects of hate – or perhaps we should use a less severe word, like dislike.  Under the sovereign dogma of ‘multiculturalism’ we are told that we are not allowed to hate anyone or anything for any reason.  Wife beating, pederasty, female genital mutilation, child slavery… increasingly saying anything bad about these patterns of behavior is not only frowned upon it can get you a stiff jail sentence.

Of course, this is insane.  If we don’t want the world to go to hell, we simply MUST be allowed to dislike other people and other cultures.

Consider how you developed, and how you got to be the person that you are.  Dislike – hate, even – was a vital part of that process.  As you were growing up there were likely times when you were rude, or destructive, or didn’t hold up your end of the bargain.  And you were punished – you didn’t get invited to the party, or get the hot date, or the new business opportunity, etc.  And – hopefully – you learned from that, and grew and improved as a person.

Imagine that as you were growing up, that no matter what you did, nobody ever criticized you or ostracized you or punished you in any way.  You would today not even be a wild animal (wild animals do have their rules, learned the hard way) – you would be a monster.

Now imagine a culture that nobody could ever criticize, where bad behavior did not result in losing any opportunities for business or travel etc.  That would be equally insane, would it not?  How can the world progress, if criticism cannot be allowed?  It’s madness.

The current president of Egypt (Abdel Fattah al-Sisi) recently gave a quite remarkable speech on new year’s day 2015.  (I regret that I can only find these few translated paragraphs – if someone knows where I can find the full text in english please let me know).  Here is a copy of the excerpts:

I am referring here to the religious clerics.   We have to think hard about what we are facing—and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before.  It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world.  Impossible!

That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world.  It’s antagonizing the entire world!

Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!

I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.

All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.

I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.

I cannot speak to whether al-Sisi is a great man, or even always a very nice man.  But these excerpts at least are profoundly intelligent.  Instead of screaming that all infidels must be killed because one person out of seven billion was a jerk, he asks: why today do so many people hate and fear Muslims?  Could, perhaps, some of that be our fault?  Have we strayed from the path these last two centuries?  Where might we be lacking, and how might we change?

This is the thinking of a sane individual.  And it occurred in reaction not to people that professed love of all things Islamic, but in reaction to people that expressed great displeasure of many things Islamic.  Hate is not always negative, but can be a very powerful force for positive change.

So where did this madness of ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘political correctness’ come from?  In part it must be because thinking is hard.  To hate everyone other than yourself is easy, it takes no thought.  To refuse to hate anyone at all is also easy, and takes no thought.  Sanity is hard – to hate people and cultures who deserve hate, and avoid hating people and cultures that do not deserve it, requires wisdom, knowledge, humility, intelligence…  And there are no guarantees here, no easy formula that will guarantee 100% success.  One must always be aware that one might be making a mistake, always question yourself and be open to changing your mind.  How seductive the simple mantra of never ever hating anything must be….

And reason goes both ways.  If someone doesn't like you, they might have a point - or they might be an asshole.  There is no escaping the need for judgement, and judgment is hard.

But there is another reason for the rise of ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘political correctness’.  You see, forcing population growth higher by importing an excessive number of foreign nationals is the most surefire way of the rich getting even richer.  Nothing boosts profits like cheap labor, and nothing makes cheap labor better than 100 people competing for each job.  But if you want to import a large number of dirt-poor refugees, where are they most likely to come from?  From decent countries, that have moderate standards of behavior and have created a high level of prosperity?  Or from awful places, where corruption and child slavery and breeding like rodents etc. are prevalent and the place is a cesspit where people dream only of escaping?  Obviously from the latter. 

But then if the rich are going to invite the scum of the earth into a country, the locals might not want that.  I mean, if you threw a party, would you want some alcoholic weirdo who never bathed and insulted everyone and stole everything not nailed down invited?  I don’t think so.  So the rich simply outlaw any criticism of other cultures – oh we must all love each other, and nobody can complain when we jam in a hundred million Wahhabist nutjobs because I’M making big money NOW…  And deprived of the bracing effect of intelligent criticism, the world slowly spirals into rot and ruin.

The world needs more, not less, intelligent and reasoned hatred.  As I said before, just give hate a chance.

The Great Squirrel Cage Challenge of 2015: HYDROPOWER!

It has been suggested that all of the ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’ alternatives to fossil fuels are so much magic pixie dust, that they are absurd and not practical.  One joking proposal was to generate electricity with enormous numbers of squirrels running in cages hooked up to generators.  The reason that this is ridiculous is obvious: you could not get more energy out of this setup than is present in the grains you feed the squirrels, but a lot of the energy that a squirrel consumes goes to growth and staying warm etc., plus they don’t run all the time, and the cost of manufacturing and maintaining billions of squirrel cages would be enormous.  Much more efficient to just burn the grain and use it to power a steam generator.

However, many of the so-called alternative energy sources are just as unworkable.  Such as ocean thermal energy conversion, or biodiesel.  Or growing corn with intensive chemical fertilizers and then using more fossil fuels to refine the corn into ethanol and then burning it… Thus, there is a contest to “come up with the most absurd new energy technology you can think of, and write either the giddily dishonest corporate press release or the absurdly sycophantic media article announcing it to the world.”

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2015/01/march-of-squirrels.html

So here is my answer to the challenge: hydropower!  Clean, efficient, reliable, quiet, hydropower.  You know, where you have big dams and the water flowing through them generates electrical power.  Granted there is a little local ecological impact of a big dam, and in the long run there can be issues with reservoirs silting up, but really, hydropower is an almost perfect renewable green power source.  It also has the added advantage that, over the long run, the energy that you get out of a big dam is many, many times what you put into it.

Now you may say, but wait!  Sure hydropower is a good energy source, but it currently only produces about 16% of the world’s electricity, and most of the good sites are already developed.  So there just aren’t enough appropriate rivers and mountain passes left.

That is correct – but only because the rich have conspired to jam seven billion people into the world (yes really it was deliberate, but there isn’t space to go over that here.  Check out previous blogs on this site for further information).  If the population were only a billion then clean renewable hydropower could fulfill all of our electricity needs very nicely.

But, you may say, even if it is the fault of the rich, what is done is done and there ARE seven billion people in the world.  Are you proposing to kill six out of seven people?  No of course not.  I’m just pointing out that our problem with long-term energy needs is not technological at all, it is demographic and political.  The only reason that we are on the verge of running out of cheap fossil fuels and maybe having a greenhouse effect is because of recent forced massive population growth.  With a population stable at a billion (or even two or three) none of these issues would be a problem.

If you have dug yourself into a hole, the first thing to do is be honest about how you got there.  And then to stop digging.

Now if the population was stabilized, you get a bonus effect.  That’s because we use energy not just to operate machinery, but to constructing it in the first place.  An automobile typically uses as much energy to build as it consumes over its operating lifetime.  So with a stable population, we would save all the energy used to build new roads and factories etc., and we would only need to pay for operations and maintenance.  It’s like when someone pays off the mortgage on a house – you can suddenly live on half of the income that you needed before.  So with a stable population, we could probably get most of our electricity from hydropower with a population of two billion, about what it was in 1940.

I know, I'm just talking about the generation of electricity and ignoring the use of hydrocarbons for vehicle fuel and chemical production.  But you get the idea.  We don't need perfect 'sustainability' right now - we just need to have some slack.  With a modest and stable population we could fill the gaps by burning coal for over thousand years: yes coal is polluting, but if there were just a handful of generating plants it wouldn't be a global problem, and it would give us plenty of time to think of something better.

A moderately sized and stable population gives us lots of time and lots of wiggle room, and every advance is pure profit.  A large and rapidly growing population puts on us a treadmill that gets faster and faster and steeper and steeper, and we need to come up with a new radical breakthrough on an increasingly accelerated schedule just to stay even.

Even with a stable population of three billion – about what it was in 1960 – we could get most of our electricity from hydropower, and we could fill the gap with only modest consumption of fossil fuels.  We would have many centuries to develop new technologies, or refine existing ones. 

That’s the other bonus to a stable population: time.  It’s very hard to make devices more efficient.  If you want to double the world’s population in a century, the notion that you can do this via increases in efficiency is absurd.  An isolated process can be made more efficient in a laboratory setting at great expense: making all industrial processes 50% efficient in a short period of time with the working capital available to us now is just not going to happen.  But with a stable population, if over a century we made everything 10% more efficient, well, everyone would have 10% more. 

So right now we have not one, or two, or three, but seven billion people.  Our choices are very much more constrained.  But if we are to have any chance of preventing the world from sliding back into a new dark age, we need to recognize that population growth is the main problem, and that it is the insatiable desire of the rich for cheap labor that drives population growth.  If we stopped forcing populations higher now, we would at least have a chance.  At least any progress we made would not be immediately wiped out by adding more and more people.

Remember: we don’t need governments to institute policies limiting family size.  We need governments to stop instituting policies aimed at maximizing population growth.  Governments should stop hiding the effects of rapid population growth, so that people can make informed decisions.  They should stop giving medals to women with large families and banning contraceptives (I’m thinking of you, Turkey and Iran).  And they should stop replacing populations with low fertility rates, with populations with high fertility rates (immigration does maximize population growth.  A world without borders will soon have its population set by Bangladesh.  And when people are forced to live within their means, they do).

Now you may say, but what’s ridiculous about this solution?  Answer: nothing!  It’s the only sane approach to the issue.  What is ridiculous is that this cannot be talked about!  In every aspect of economics we see the power of demographics – and all mention of it must be censored.  The population is doubled, water runs short even though rainfall is within historical limits – it must be global warming!  There are more people traveling on about the same number of highway lane miles and traffic gets worse – and it’s because building roads increases traffic congestion!  The per-capita energy consumption in the United States is down significantly from its peak in 1970, but total energy consumption is up because of population increases – and the problem is that people are making more intensive use of more efficient machines (think about this: it’s an absurd statement).

Thus I humbly submit to the squirrel cage challenge the one sane proposal.  It will doubtless be declared ridiculous, if not slandered as racist.  Because that is the current state of public discussion.

In praise of insolent French cartoonists

So in France a group of cartoonists (and some others) have been gunned down by some Muslims who felt offended by their satirical cartoons.  It might be tempting to blame the victims, and say that the cartoonists deserved what they got for daring to offend Islam, but I disagree.  The cartoonists may have been jackasses, but they did us all a favor, in showing the true face of modern Wahhabist Islam.  It is a culture of violence and hate and aggression, and it spreads by assaulting and killing and driving away all others.

‘Islam is a religion of peace and all who say different must be killed.’  Well, that pretty much sums up Islam, doesn’t it?

Now every culture will have a few lunatics in it.  If someone goes on a shooting spree, people are often quick to judge an entire culture, but we should not be so hasty.  A little while ago in Japan a cult leader made some crude nerve gas and killed and sickened a bunch of people in a subway.  That is unfortunate, but modern Japanese culture is essentially peaceful – this was an outlier.

The trick is that with Islam, is that it’s not an outlier.  Consider that in France there are large ‘no go’ areas where non-Muslims cannot walk.  Even the police and firefighters can’t enter without military-style escorts!  This does not occur because of a few bad apples.  This occurs because hatred and violence is endemic in Islamic culture, and anyone entering a ‘no go’ zone will be insulted and assaulted and maybe killed, by the collective action of the entire population.

If a Christian walks through a Jewish area of France, they don't get stoned or shot or spit on.  (OK some of the ultra-orthodox Jews can be dicks, but mostly they just ignore you).  Ditto if  a Jew or a Muslim walks through a Christian neighborhood.  Wahhabist Islam is endemically violent, and in a way that is very different from other modern cultures.

Or consider the Islamic treatment of women.  Now perhaps Western women have gone too far on this equality thing, and many if not most women would be happier if they spent more time raising families and less time at work.  Or perhaps not. Regardless, no woman is voluntarily going to want to become a third-class citizen.  Dress modestly?  That might be a good idea.  Wear a bag over your head and be a dehumanized piece of property?  Not be allowed to drive, or go shopping on your own, or go to college if you want to?  Or take a job, if you want to?  Or have no legal rights if your husband decides to divorce you?  No.  Women in Islamic countries put up with this because if they don't they will be beaten.  Not by a lone random nut job, but by their husbands and fathers and neighbors.  Because modern Islam is a religion of hatred and violence and oppression, at the most basic level.  (Sure, most Islamic women say they like being treated like animals - because they will be beaten if they don't!  And then there is the Stockholm Syndrome to consider, where prisoners maintain their sanity by adapting to their circumstances.  But no, the low status of women in Muslim societies is not voluntary.  It is enforced by direct violence).

Other religions don’t go on murderous rampages because of a single stupid cartoon somewhere.  The trick with Islam, is that murderous rampages are the core of the society.  Muslims take any affront to Mohammed as a cause for deadly violence.  But it doesn’t stop there.  They take seeing a woman not covered in a bag or driving a car as a deadly insult.  Or seeing a Jew, or a synagogue, or a Christian church, or a bible…   Islam spreads through violence and intimidation.  Just ask the Macedonians, who were stupid enough to let some Islamic people settle in part of their country not so long ago, and now non-Muslims cannot enter these areas…

Imagine that you had a neighbor, and it was known that if anybody said anything bad about him or his house that he would lay about him and slaughter everyone in sight with automatic weapons.  Or imagine that you had a co-worker, and it was known that if anyone critiqued his job performance in any way that he would kill you.  Would you accept this as his right?  I mean, if he feels that strongly surely his feelings must be respected and people should just be careful to never say anything bad about him.  Or would you regard this person as a dangerous psychopath and greatly prefer that he might be somewhere else?

I am all for civility and manners.  I personally have no desire to insult the prophet Mohammed (people who murder innocents in his name are another matter).  But when a religion reacts to a disrespectful cartoon somewhere as if it is the final battle, well, something is wrong.  These insolent French cartoonists did not provoke murderous reprisals from Catholics, or Jews, or Buddhists, or Hindus.  That’s because these cultures, although they may not be perfect, are based on more than hatred and they can shrug off minor insults from minor people as just the friction of living in a messy world. 

Some say that they support the right of people to have free speech, even if the speech offends them.  Here is another angle on the topic.  We should not allow limits on free speech to be defined by those who use violence.  Allowing murderers and terrorists to define what is or is not offensive is a bad idea, and this has nothing to do with showing people respect.  Such people do not deserve respect.  And if you let governments to define what is or is not 'hate speech', well, it will start out by banning insults to Mohammed.  And then it will move to banning any discussion of the negative effects of rapid population growth, or the incidence of wife abuse in Muslim families, or whether the latest five-year economic plan is working...

Here's something to remember: the attacks in Paris didn't just kill cartoonists who insulted Islam - they killed jews because they were jewish.  We are suppose to put up with this because there are limits on free speech?  What?  That makes zero sense.

Free speech requires the toleration of offensive speech, not because offensive speech is wonderful, but because if offensive speech is banned than all else soon follows.  And many things in this world are in fact offensive, and if talking about them causes those responsible  to become angry, tough.

They say that free speech does not allow you to cry 'fire' in a crowded theater.  Wrong.  Free speech allows - and duty requires - that one cry 'fire' in a crowded theater... if there really is a fire.  With Wahhabist Muslims, there really is a fire.

Refusing to criticize Wahhabist Muslims will not buy you peace.  As they encroach on your lands, they will resort to violence just because you exist – you insult them by having been born, and they will convert or kill or drive you away.  These insolent French cartoonists did us a favor, they provoked the Muslims into showing their true face before they had achieved so much power that they cannot be resisted.  These cartoonists should be honored for their courage, and let us hope that those who follow are not intimidated by the bullies of Islam.

Give hate a chance

Angela Merkel is a far-right racist xenophobic hater.

Angela Merkel is the current Chancellor of Germany (as of January 2015).  She has made a habit of falsely accusing many of her opponents as far-right racist xenophobic haters.  Surely turnabout is fair play. 

Is Angela Merkel really a far-right racist xenophobic hater?  Well by her own standards of evidence – which are zero – yes she is.  But more to the point, she is not a nice person at all. 

Angela Merkel is pushing for a massive rate of immigration of foreign nationals into Germany.  There can be no doubt that she is doing this for one reason only: to artificially increase the supply of labor, thus decreasing wages for the many, and increasing profits for the few.  Follow the money.

The notion that Germany needs all these foreign workers to avoid a ‘labor shortage’, or to ‘do jobs that Germans won’t do’, is a lie.  No society in all of recorded history has ever run out of workers.  It sometimes happens that, when businesses advertise for workers at poverty-level wages, they get no takers.  This means that wages will be above the poverty level.  Which means that there will be prosperity.  That’s it.

In Germany there is a terrible ‘shortage’ of workers who will accept a wage of a euro an hour.  No such shortage in Bangladesh.  So is the average German troubled by this terrible ‘shortage’ of labor?  Not at all – the average German’s prosperity is based on this.  Ensure an abundance of euro-an-hour workers in Germany, and you will drive the German standard of living down to the level of Bangladesh.

We may rule out that Angela Merkel’s cheap-labor immigration policy has anything to do with morality by noting that neither Ms. Merkel nor her wealthy patrons have any intention of making the slightest sacrifice in order to make room for all these third-world refugees.  

There are few things more disgusting than a rich person claiming the moral high-ground while enacting policies that will make themselves richer while impoverishing everyone else.  They don’t have the moral standing to makes these claims, and they should be shouted down every time they try.

So surely the average German has a perfect right to object to an immigration policy aimed at making them all poorer.  The rich have no problem preventing less-rich Germans from trespassing into their walled estates or private clubs or private schools, do they?  Surely the average German has the same right to prevent foreign nationals from trespassing into their country – foreign nationals have their own countries, thank you very much, and if they find it intolerable to live there perhaps they should do something about it.

Imagine that you arrived home one day, and found that a dozen strangers had broken into your house and were helping themselves to your food and your clothes and your car etc.  You would call the police and have these trespassers removed, would you not?  Does that make you a racist xenophobic hater?  I think not.  It is reasonable to hate people that are stealing from you, that are driving you into poverty.  And if these people are pedophile wife-beating anti-semites, well, that's just icing on the cake of hatred.

Hate and love are the two most rational and important emotions. Love is applied to that which gives us pleasure, and which furthers our aims.  It drives one to keep the loved object near, and to preserve and protect it.  Hate is applied to that which causes us pain, which diminishes us and frustrates our aims.  It causes us to drive away or wall off the hated object.    Which is surely utterly reasonable.  The problem is not hate, the problem is if people hate something or someone inappropriately.  So instead of saying that we should not hate Islamic fascists 'just because', if someone really thinks this is an inappropriate use of hate let them make a rational argument to that effect.  Yes, let them explain why turning the country into another Afghanistan should not worry the average German.  

If someone hates you, instead of bullying them into silence, perhaps you should ask yourself if you have given them reason to hate you.  If so, perhaps the answer to hate is for people to so manage their affairs that others have no legitimate reason to hate them.  For people in the overpopulated third-world, that would include not having enormous numbers of children that they sell into slavery.  Overpopulation is especially pernicious, because it makes people an objective enemy just because they exist - not a good ground for future amity.  So best to avoid the situation in the first place, yes?

I suggest that if, instead of fixating on criminalizing 'hate' whenever it discomfits the rich, people gave equal weight to the other side of the coin, then the world might be a much better place.  

There is an old saying, that if you would be loved, first make yourself lovable.  And if you would not be hated...

All we are saying,  is give hate a chance.

Now Angela Merkel’s cheap-labor immigration policy would be vile even if the foreign nationals she was importing were all angels – because it’s mostly about the numbers.  But just to really make things worse, the foreign nationals she is importing include a large number of vile Islamic fascists.  These people are scum, they foul every land that they colonize, and people should be free to say so.

The problem is not, I think, the Islamic religion in the abstract.  It doesn’t matter what god the islamofascists do or do not worship.  What matters is how they behave, and what their culture is.  They treat their women like slaves and their children like cattle.  They breed enormous families as a source of disposable cheap labor, and turn their lands into overpopulated cesspits of filth and misery.  They preach extreme hatred of Jews and Christians and Hindus and Women and Homosexuals and anything else they can think of.  They explode out into other lands and, when they have achieved a significant fraction of the population, they attack non-Muslims, and drive them out.  If they are bottled up and prevented from expanding, they turn on each other, and vent their mindless rage and frustration by slaughtering each other over obscure doctrinal differences.

Muslims are just like Nazis, except that they have a broader spectrum of things they hate, and the trains don’t run on time.

'Islam is a religion of peace, and all who say different must be killed.'  If nothing else, nobody can accuse Muslims of having a sense of irony.

Now whether Islam in the abstract must inevitably be like this I have no idea.  I leave that to the religious scholars and the sociologists.  “The devil can quote scripture” – any philosophy can and has been used as a shield for evil intent.  There have, I think, been some moderate Muslim societies, and even with some recent backsliding the Turkish Muslims seem pretty reasonable.  But in most of the world today, where the influence of the Saudi royal family in spreading their extremist Wahhabist philosophy now dominates, with little inaccuracy it is defensible to generalize Islam (the culture) as vile.

Now one might say that there is no reason to fear Wahhabist Islam because, at any given time, most Muslims are not blowing themselves up as suicide bombers.  Wrong.  First, the main threat from modern Islam is the massive size and rate of growth of their populations - they are a threat because they have been born.  But second, so what?  If you are a 1930's era Chinese being attacked by Japanese soldiers, does it matter that at any one time most Japanese were not actually raping and killing Chinese civilians?  If you were an English villager in the 11 century, should you not feat the Vikings because most of them are not at that instant burning your village to the ground?  Rubbish.  If you are threatened by a spear it is not just the tip, but the shaft and the arm and the person behind it to worry about.  Most Muslims are not terrorists - but wherever Muslims settle in large numbers there is terrorism, and poverty, and sooner or later the non-Muslims are driven out.  That's what matters.

Religion is often the first defense of the indefensible.  If a group of pederasts claimed that they were a religion, would that mean that we could no longer despise them?  How about a group of cannibals?  Or serial killers?  Or Neo-liberal economists?  The worth of groups should be judged based on their behaviors, and religion should be left out of it.  If a group has nasty worldly beliefs and behaviors, so be it.  The problem with Islamofascism is not worshipping Allah or praying to Mecca.  It is wife-abuse and child slavery and terrorism and beating up and killing people who are not Muslims when they get the chance.

Some sociologists say that everything is relative, and that no culture is objectively better or worse than any other.  I disagree.  Certainly one should be humble, and realize that all cultures have flaws and that there is often much that one can learn from others.  But nevertheless some cultures are better than others.  I propose that any culture where the average person dreams only of escaping, is overall inferior to a culture where people worry about keeping other people out.  

The worst thing that you can do to most modern Muslims is to make them live in a majority Muslim country.  Surely there is a lesson here.  If the Muslims themselves find it intolerable to live with their fellow Muslims, can we truly blame the Germans for agreeing?

The philosopher Karl Popper wrote on what he called “The paradox of tolerance.”  A tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance. 

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. – In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

So surely it is reasonable to speak out against these Islamic fascists.  Surely one should be free to not like them, and to not invite them to your country, because they are objectively vile.  But Angela Merkel stands logic on its head – rather than speak out against Islamic fascists and their hatred of women and Jews and Christians etc., she speaks out against her fellow citizens for daring to speak out against the intolerance of Islam!  It’s enough to make your head spin. 

If someone spoke out against the intolerance of Nazism, does that make them intolerant?  Ridiculous, right? 

Karl Popper was a smart guy, but he should have worried a little more about giving governments the power to outlaw 'hate' speech.  Once a government gets that power, it is free to use it on anyone, including those objecting to hate…  I guess you could call this the paradox of the paradox of tolerance.

So why is Angela Merkel so adamant about admitting and defending Islamic fascists?  Most likely, pure convenience.  Because Muslim culture is so horrible, it has created by far the largest pool of desperately poor workers in the world.  So if you want to drive wages down by an excessively high rate of immigration, Muslims are the easiest way to go.  I mean, you won’t get many Japanese or Australians or South Koreans desperate to work for sub-poverty wages, will you?  Muslims are just the easiest available source of cheap labor.  Even dirt-poor India uses immigration from Muslim Bangladesh to keep wages down.

When Angela Merkel slimes opponents of Islamofascism, it is for the simple reason that an honest dialog about the nature of modern extremist Wahhabism might result in a reduction of the net rate of immigration into Germany, which would reduce the downwards pressure on wages, and reduce profit growth for the 1%.  Period.  

Here’s an example of what importing Muslim refugees as a source of cheap labor can mean for a country.  The Ivory Coast used to be one of the more prosperous nations in Africa.  So the rich imported large numbers of Muslims, specifically to lower their labor costs.  When the Muslims reached about half the population, they tore the nation apart in a civil war.  That happened.  That is the story.  The notion that nobody can object to the massive immigration of Islamic fascists, because absolutely nothing can go wrong and anyone who objects is a hater, is false.  The objective record is that these concerns are valid. 

Angela Merkel is continuing to import massive numbers of third-world refugees, including a lot of very nasty characters, in order to drive wages down and profits up.  This will make the average German increasingly poorer, and if unchecked it will eventually destroy German society as it currently exists – but by that time Angela Merkel’s rich patrons will have made a lot of money and they can just leave Germany to rot and move somewhere else. 

But that doesn’t sound good.  So Angela Merkel and her corporate masters slime any opposition as ‘racists’, or ‘haters’, or ‘anti-Islamic’ (although this latter is a bit of a complement, like saying that someone is anti child abuse).  Indeed, it seems likely that Angela Merkel and those like her will try to make it a crime to criticize people who openly preach hatred of Jews and Christians and women – how’s that for a kick in the head?

Angela Merkel is scum.  Her slandering of her opponents as ‘haters’ should be emphatically rejected.  Instead, we should speak of her as an awful person, as a corporate shill, as a toady to parasitic finance, as one who willingly sells out her countrymen for money.  Oh, and accusing her of being a racist seems only appropriate as well.  For her support of Islamic hate, we could I think legitimately accuse her of being anti-Christian, anti-semitic, anti-German, and anti-woman. 

Angela Merkel is a far-right racist xenophobic hater.  It fits, I think.