Merkel is the Wicked Stepmother of Refugees

For “standing firm against tyranny […] and for providing steadfast moral leadership,” Angela Merkel was chosen as Person of the Year 2015 by Time magazine. She is further lauded for her welcoming attitude, compassion and generosity. Being from Germany, I read this with interest, but to be honest: I’m not proud.

Let’s take a closer look here: Millions of Muslim civilians have been killed since the US-led War on Terror began. Moderate governments have been attacked or toppled by NATO for instance in Libya and now Syria, either directly or through the support of rebel groups that in almost every case turn out to be radical Islamicists. Did Angela Merkel stand up for the civilian victims and against tyrannical wars of aggression? No — not a word of condemnation from her. The US is Germany’s ally, along with Saudi-Arabia, Turkey and others who habitually fund radical Islamicists and violate human rights at home.

So why do refugees seem to love her? Because they’re uneducated, it must be assumed. Of the millions of refugees who had escaped Syria, most stayed in neighboring countries, hoping to be able to return to their home as soon as possible. They received support from the UN, funded by European and Arab countries — until they stopped sending money in late 2014. The drastic and in some cases total withdrawal of support left refugees with no other choice but to set out on the perilous journey towards Europe. It’s Merkel’s and others’ non-support that caused refugees to starve in camps and die on the land and sea route towards Europe. To call Angela Merkel “welcoming” is quite a stretch — she’s luring people on a trail of despair.

Thinking of a reason for why she’s doing this, I’m at a loss. Maybe Julian Assange is right, that Syria’s enemies are interested in thoroughly depopulating the country. Maybe Keynesian economists — i.e. the political and economical establishment of the West— see the potential for a growth in GDP due to increased government spending as a result of the influx of refugees into their domain. Merkel’s motives are unknown, yet the consequences of her actions are undeniable.

And this is for Merkel’s “steadfast moral leadership”: Still not a word from her about the support of radical Islamicists by various NATO countries. Still not a word about their war crimes and genocide all over the Middle East, for instance due to the use of depleted uranium by US forces. Not the faintest vision for how to bring peace back to the region and enable refugees to return to their home. Instead, Germany will now — at least indirectly — partake in the bombing of Syria.

So what does help refugees, how can peace be achieved? I’ve outlined this in my recent book More Bang for the Buck:

“Support for refugees appears to be most efficient in safe areas close to their home countries. Financial resources have a higher leverage in Africa and the Middle East due to the lower cost of living compared to Europe. Cultural differences also tend to be lower in neighboring countries than in distant countries with very different cultural backgrounds. If safe neighboring countries become overwhelmed, however, despite sufficient financial and material support from the international community, the safe and ordered relocation of refugees into other countries would seem advisable.

To accept refugees who independently travel through a great number of safe countries in order to apply for asylum in a nation of their choosing encourages the abuse of asylum benefits in the form of welfare migration. Not only does it endanger the refugees on their way, not only do accepting nations face higher costs because of freeloaders who pretend to be refugees, but genuine refugees will be met with less hospitality due to the sheer number of asylum seekers and because they will be suspected to be freeloaders as well. The depopulation of semi-dangerous areas will also increase the likeliness that these areas will eventually experience war and oppression by radicals.
The immediate resettlement of refugees into far-away countries seems expedient only if private citizens from other parts of the world would volunteer to transport and support refugees directly without any involvement of the state, so there would be no incentive for welfare migration. It would also help with the integration of refugees because of the added factor of personal interaction. For this, the state would have to eliminate certain restrictions and give up its monopoly on determining what’s best for refugees as well as for its own citizens.

Ultimately, the safe return of refugees to their home countries must be the goal of any refugee policy. Endless wars or rule by tyrants cannot be accepted as a long-term perspective. To create new economic opportunities in the home countries of refugees, there needs to be peace. The international community must stand up to its responsibility to end the wars in the Middle East and contribute to the reconstruction of what has been destroyed due to their support of terrorists and despots. To accomplish this and to provide for the refugees that have arrived and will arrive in Europe, additional resources are required. These could be generated by opening up the markets for guns and drugs. If refugee policies will be funded through higher taxes, new loans, confiscation of private real estate or a lowering of welfare benefits, a backlash against established political institutions as well as a rise in xenophobia would have to be expected.”

Most people understand that the War on Drugs is a failure and needs to be ended or at least fought in a different way. Especially my call for more liberal gun laws, however, has met with much criticism so far. I encourage the reader to look at the evidence I presented in this context. (You can find More Bang for the Buck on Amazon and for free on The Pirate Bay.) And ask yourself: Can governments be trusted with a monopoly on armed force — the same governments who bomb the Middle East, who lie to their populations in Europe and the US, who are bent on increasing the police state and further curtailing civil liberties, who create and endanger refugees, and whose so-called peace missions in virtually every case lead to countless civilian deaths and ever more terror?