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.