So Time Magazine has announced that the fascist chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, is to be their person of the year.
Yes, Angela Merkel, the shrunken-apple head fuhrer whose unilateral and undemocratic decision to open up all of europe to unlimited third-world migration so that her wealthy patrons can have ever cheaper labor, has certainly made her a political leader with an impact. I note that not only does Ms. Merkel not intend to make any personal sacrifices herself to this end, she was previously just fine with the Greek people starving to death in order to placate the big central banks. So we can rule out compassion as any sort of motivator for the new German Iron Chancellor.
One notes that this opening up of borders has coincided with a plan by her to eliminate the minimum wage. The two go together: having enough surplus labor to drive wages down to 2 euros/hour won't make much profit if it is illegal to pay less than 10 euros/hour, will it?
Cheap labor über alles!
Fascist? The word is chronically over-used, but as she has asserted absolute authority over the demographics of europe - not just Germany - insisting that its population be massively increased and made wahhabist muslim, without any consultation with or concern for the people themselves, is surely dictatorial and yes I would think that fascist is an appropriate label.
It was in 1938 that Time Magazine named Adolph Hitler as the man of the year.
Karl Marx was wrong about many things, but he got one thing right. History does repeat, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
One of the most common rhetorical tricks of a corrupt politician is to say that 'we' (meaning you) should not 'give in to fear', or that 'fear is a poor guide to the future.'
Any politician making such a statement should be subject to extreme skepticism. It is likely that they are engaging in a policy that people should fear - the statement is designed to quash debate, by removing specifics from the conversation and making the object the alleged neurotic fearfulness of the public rather than the specific policy.
The same goes with change. Beware the politician who defends a policy by saying that 'we must embrace change', or 'we must change', or 'we must not be afraid of change.' These are all blatantly dishonest statements. The real issue is WHAT change, exactly, and will it be good or bad?
So Angela Merkel has opened the european union to potentially unlimited third-world immigration, and her response is simply 'fear is a poor guide'. That's because she is out of ammunition. To say that we should not fear a horde of people who have already so overpopulated their own lands that they find it intolerable to live there, is not something that can be defended - so take out the specifics and make a direct attack on the morals of the skeptics.
And of course, because there is essentially no vetting of these refugees, many of them are doubtless drug gang members, murderers, rapists, government thugs and torturers, etc. Should we fear an influx of rapists and murderers and drug gang members? I should hope so!
Now suppose someone said that we should not fear these third-world refugees because most of them are decent and hardworking. It's wrong, but at least it is a rational argument. It's wrong because who cares if MOST are decent and hardworking - when playing Russian Roulette, MOST cylinders are empty. Still want to play? Most of the time when you drive a car you won't need a seat belt - still want to buckle up, right? And in any event the real threat of all these third-world refugees is their numbers. They will swallow up all jobs, all resources, and all capital, turn the place into another Bangladesh, and still be hungry for more. Just consider the hellish lands these people are escaping from, and realize who made those lands so hellish. Yes corrupt politicians caused a lot of the misery - but even more yes, people having more children than they could afford to support.
This begs the question: why don't people like Merkel say that we should not fear all these third-world refugees BECAUSE of something (however dishonest or wrong)? Why only say that we should not fear, period? Again, it is because this is a rhetorical trick, that attempts to throw the onus on the skeptic.
I suggest that whenever someone says that you should not fear anything in general, that you don't defend yourself but only declare it to be a cheap rhetorical trick and that the person in question is not arguing in good faith. Throw it back at them.
So when you hear a politician say that you should not give in to fear, or some variation on that theme, be afraid. Be very afraid.
