Home » Eurabia, Europe, Immigration, Manipulation, Multiculturalism » Why does Germany silence the crimes committed by migrants?


Why does Germany silence the crimes committed by migrants?

 
 
 
 
 
submit to reddit

The number of crimes committed by foreigners, illegal migrants first and foremost, has increased dramatically during the recent two years in Germany. According to the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA), migrants committed more than 200,000 offenses in 2015. This amount is 80% higher than in the previous year.

In fact, experts say, the number of offenses is much higher. Many of them are deliberately silenced as there are political instructions not to publicize the crimes committed by refugees, in order not to incite anti-immigrant strife, RIA Novosti reports.

Chairman of the union of German criminal authorities, André Schultz, says that up to 90% of sex crimes committed in Germany are not included in official statistics.

According to experts, concealing crimes is a policy that German authorities pursue on a regular basis. The German press does the same, because German mass media outlets are forbidden to name suspects’ nationalities.

Not that long ago, the largest German broadcasters, ARD, was heavily criticized after the channel ignored the incident of rape of a woman by refugee from Afghanistan. Editors of ARD TV decided not to cover the arrest of the 17-year-old refugee in Saturday’s Tagesschau news program. Social networkers showered ARD with criticism, accusing the channel of consciously concealing the crime in an attempt to remain “politically correct”, AFP reports.

Last year, Germany opened its borders to about one million Muslim refugees. This resulted in sexual harassment of German women in Cologne, terrorist attacks in Olympia shopping center, a knife attack on a train, let alone such daily crimes as rapes and other attacks that migrants commit.

Chairman of the German police union, Rainer Wendt, described the situation in Germany as “a combination of mental instability, terrorism and crime.” The refugee crisis in Germany has given rise to nationalist movements and marches with torches in the streets of German cities. The movement PEGIDA (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West) was declared Islamophobic, while many German officials ceased to be silent. In the east of Germany, the CDU lost elections to the eurosceptic organization Alternative for Germany.

Angela Merkel started neutralizing her policy of tolerance to refuges during the reelection year. She assured the Germans that Germany would be able to handle the problem. She also promised that the massive inflow of refugees in 2015 would not occur again. The German Chancellor also started talking about the need to ban the wearing of burqa and emphasized the supremacy of secular laws over Sharia.

However, the integration process has already started. It has been reported that German women have started giving birth to migrants’ children. The birth rate in Germany increased 1.5 times last year and reached a record high for women in their thirties.

Migrants and refugees have given Germany what the country needed most – children, Bloomberg said. According to the agency, Germany is currently experiencing a baby boom, and the birth rate has grown by 50 percent at once, Life reports.

Experts see both positive and negative aspects in the phenomenon.

“Angela Merkel’s positive attitude to migration was not incidental. Germany, in fact, has serious demographic problems. The influx of migrants, objectively speaking, would be useful for Germany. In this regard, Japan serves as a good example. Japan rigidly blocks migration, whereas South Korea, for example, encourages labor migration. Indeed, the South Korean economy grows, whereas the Japanese economy stagnates.

“It works well when migration is adjustable and targetable, but one can not say that about migration in Europe. There are more minuses than pluses at this point. It has stirred up protest sentiments in the European society. Many of those migrants who come to Europe are unwilling to work. They want to live on social benefits from European governments,” leading researcher at the International Laboratory of Demography and Political Dynamics, Andrei Korotaev told Pravda.Ru.

Source

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
Why does Germany silence the crimes committed by migrants?, 5.0 out of 5 based on 2 ratings
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  


RELATED ARTICLES

Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.
  • angrywhiteman

    why?

    Cultural Marxism has been dubbed “the
    greatest cancer in the Western world”

    but few even know what it is.

    http://destoryculturalmarxism.blogspot.com/

    Cultural Marxism: An offshoot of Marxism that gave
    birth to political correctness, multiculturalism and “anti-racism.”

    Unlike traditional Marxism
    that focuses on economics, Cultural Marxism focuses on culture and maintains
    that all human behavior is a result of culture (not heredity / race) and thus
    malleable. Cultural Marxists absurdly deny the biological reality of gender and
    race and argue that gender and race are “social constructs”. Nonetheless, Cultural
    Marxists support the race-based identity politics of non-whites. Cultural
    Marxists typically support race-based affirmative action, the proposition state
    (as opposed to a nation rooted in common ancestry), elevating non-Western
    religions above Western religions, speech codes and censorship,
    multiculturalism, diversity training, anti-Western education curricula,
    maladaptive sexual norms and anti-male feminism, the dispossession of white
    people, and mass Third World immigration into Western countries. Cultural
    Marxists have promoted idea that white people, instead of birthing white
    babies, should interracially marry or adopt non-white children. Samuel P.
    Huntington maintained that Cultural Marxism is an anti-white ideology.
    Critics of Cultural Marxism have maintained that Cultural Marxists intend
    to commit genocide against white people through mass non-white immigration,
    assimilation, transracial adoption and miscegenation.

    “The very essence of Cultural Marxism is the
    support of mass immigration / open borders.”

    “The end goal of Cultural Marxists is white genocide.”

    “Political correctness is Cultural Marxism.”

    “Cultural Marxists have taken over the institutions of the media,
    education, mainstream Christianity (conservative and liberal), law, and finance.
    Their goal is the annihilation of Western Civilization in general and white
    people in particular.”

    ALSO GO TRUMP GO

    For once, the powerful socialist cabal and the corrupt
    crony capitalists are scared. I’ve never seen them this outraged… this vicious…
    this motivated… this coordinated. NEVER in all my years in politics, have I
    seen anything like the way the mad dogs of hell have been unleashed on Donald
    Trump.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXe4JNXdOPk

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • angrywhiteman

    here is another why?

    THE ORIGINS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

    http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/

    February 5, 2000,
    Bill Lind, An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind

    Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about this
    morning – the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented
    statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it –
    where does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to
    be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They
    have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or
    insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic.

    We have seen other countries, particularly in this
    century, where this has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a
    mixture of pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us
    as so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they would
    be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this situation in this
    country. We have it primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading
    throughout the whole society. Were does it come from? What is it?

    We call it “Political Correctness.” The name
    originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend
    still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is
    the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of
    people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the
    disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

    If we look at it analytically, if we look at it
    historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is
    cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.
    It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace
    movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political
    Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.

    First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The
    totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly
    than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered
    North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the
    lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the
    local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups
    that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within
    the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some
    star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future
    that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.

    Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the
    essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is
    not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this
    philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole of the history of
    our culture is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality
    contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to
    acknowledge the reality of our history. People must be forced to live a lie,
    and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use
    their ears and eyes to look out and say, “Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can
    see it isn’t true,” the power of the state must be put behind the demand to
    live a lie. That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

    Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness,
    like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic
    Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of
    production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history
    is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc.,
    have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature,
    indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.

    Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain
    groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e.,
    the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of
    Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist
    women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics,
    homosexuals. These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore
    automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males
    are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the
    bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.

    Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on
    expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country
    like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property.
    Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they
    expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student
    with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a
    black or Hispanic who isn’t as well qualified, the white student is
    expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is a
    system of expropriation. White owned companies don’t get a contract because the
    contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So
    expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.

    And finally, both have a method of

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • angrywhiteman

      And finally, both have a
      method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. For the
      classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s
      deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning
      from it and re-inserts any meaning desired. So we find, for example, that all
      of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about
      race and gender. All of these texts simply become grist for the mill, which
      proves that “all history is about which groups have power over which other
      groups.” So the parallels are very evident between the classical Marxism that
      we’re familiar with in the old Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we
      see today as Political Correctness.

      But the parallels are not
      accidents. The parallels did not come from nothing. The fact of the matter is
      that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much longer than
      many people are aware of outside a small group of academics who have studied
      this. And the history goes back, as I said, to World War I, as do so many of
      the pathologies that are today bringing our society, and indeed our culture,
      down.

      Marxist theory said that
      when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe in 1914), the
      working class throughout Europe would rise up and overthrow their governments –
      the bourgeois governments – because the workers had more in common with each
      other across the national boundaries than they had in common with the
      bourgeoisie and the ruling class in their own country. Well, 1914 came and it
      didn’t happen. Throughout Europe, workers rallied to their flag and happily
      marched off to fight each other. The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the
      Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germany and said there are no parties now,
      there are only Germans. And this happened in every country in Europe. So
      something was wrong.

      Marxists knew by
      definition it couldn’t be the theory. In 1917, they finally got a
      Marxist coup in Russia and it looked like the theory was working, but it
      stalled again. It didn’t spread and when attempts were made to spread
      immediately after the war, with the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, with the
      Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers didn’t
      support them.

      So the Marxists’ had a problem. And two Marxist theorists
      went to work on it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary.
      Gramsci said the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined
      by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from
      the Christian religion – that they are blinded by culture and religion to their
      true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist
      theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, “Who will save us from Western
      Civilization?” He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of a
      Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.

      Lukacs gets a chance to put his ideas into practice,
      because when the home grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government is established in
      Hungary in 1919, he becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing
      he did was introduce sex education into the Hungarian schools. This ensured
      that the workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian
      people looked at this aghast, workers as well as everyone else. But he had
      already made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by, that
      we would consider the “latest thing.”

      In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes
      on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that
      creates Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has
      created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about because the
      very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil
      has become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend. He is disturbed by the
      divisions among the Marxists, so he sponsors something called the First Marxist
      Work Week, where he brings Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together
      for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.

      And he says, “What we need is a think-tank.” Washington
      is full of think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go
      back quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt
      University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be known as
      the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning
      that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. The last
      thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it’s a form of
      Marxism. So instead they decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.

      Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1917, he wrote to
      Martin Jay the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the
      Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, “I
      wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions
      to Marxism.” Well, he was successful. The first director of the Institute, Carl
      Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to
      Martin Jay, “by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a
      scientific methodology.” Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the
      Institute, and that never changed.

      The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930 it
      acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were very
      different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form
      the Frankfurt School are renegade Marxists. They’re still very much Marxist in
      their thinking, but they’re effectively run out of the party. Moscow looks at
      what they are doing and says, “Hey, this isn’t us, and we’re not going to bless
      this.”

      Horkheimer’s initial heresy is that he is very interested
      in Freud, and the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into
      cultural terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin
      Jay writes, “If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the
      Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s
      socio-economic sub-structure,” – and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic
      to the Frankfurt School, I’m not reading from a critic here – “in the years
      after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure. Indeed the
      traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was
      brought into question by Critical Theory.”

      The stuff we’ve been hearing about this morning – the
      radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments,
      the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical
      Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and
      Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is
      ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, “What is the theory?” The theory is to
      criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the
      capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to
      do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society
      would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living
      under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which
      creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud
      describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it. What
      Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most
      destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the
      current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the
      whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is
      a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the
      1960s.

      Other key members who join up around this time are
      Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm
      and Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and
      that’s the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings
      calls for a society of “polymorphous perversity,” that is his definition of the
      future of the world that they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the
      1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but
      this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in
      Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm’s view, masculinity and
      femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the
      Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life
      functions, which were in part socially determined.” Sex is a construct; sexual
      differences are a construct.

      Another example is the emphasis we now see on
      environmentalism. “Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative
      dominating attitude toward nature.” That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in
      Materialismus und Moral. “The theme of man’s domination of nature,” according
      to Jay, ” was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent
      years.” “Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishization of labor, (here’s were
      they’re obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension
      of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness.” In one of his
      most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in
      1936, Horkeimer “discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in
      bourgeois culture.” And he specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade,
      favorably, for his “protest…against asceticism in the name of a higher
      morality.”

      How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it
      flood into our universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of
      the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the
      Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the
      Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York
      City, and the Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia
      University. And the members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s,
      though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from Critical
      Theory about German society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that
      society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another
      very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work for the
      government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (the
      predecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to
      Hollywood.

      These origins of Political Correctness would probably not
      mean too much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the
      student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the
      draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels needed theory of some sort.
      They couldn’t just get out there and say, “Hell no we won’t go,” they had to
      have some theoretical explanation behind it. Very few of them were interested
      in wading through Das Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and
      most of the radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and
      unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university, Herbert
      Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated back to
      Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled by the
      student rebellion when it breaks out there – when the student rebels come into
      Adorno’s classroom, he calls the police and has them arrested – Herbert Marcuse,
      who remained here, saw the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw
      the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory
      of the New Left in the United States.

      One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became
      the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and
      Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays the
      Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry into
      Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order
      and that gives us the person Freud describes – the person with all the
      hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can
      envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in
      which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of
      “polymorphous perversity,” in which you can “do you own thing.” And by the way,
      in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a wonderful message
      for the radicals of the mid-60s! They’re students, they’re baby-boomers, and
      they’ve grown up never having to worry about anything except eventually having
      to get a job. And here is a guy writing in a way they can easily follow. He
      doesn’t require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything
      they want to hear which is essentially, “Do your own thing,” “If it feels good
      do it,” and “You never have to go to work.” By the way, Marcuse is also the man
      who creates the phrase, “Make love, not war.” Coming back to the situation
      people face on campus, Marcuse defines “liberating tolerance” as intolerance
      for anything coming from the Right and tolerance for anything coming from the
      Left. Marcuse joined the Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So,
      all of this goes back to the 1930s.

      In conclusion, America today is in the throes of
      the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an
      ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the
      power of the state. In “hate crimes” we now have people serving jail sentences
      for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category
      ever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who
      dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly what
      we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s
      coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness
      and laugh it off. My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s here, it’s
      growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that
      we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.

      …………………

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Copyright © 2009 The European Union Times – Breaking News, Latest News. All rights reserved.