The following article was published last week by Philosophia Perennis, a German opinion website run by the author and Catholic theologian David Berger. I’m told the essay earned the author time in “Facebook jail”.
Many thanks to JLH for the translation:
Why “Refugees” Are One of the Most Dangerous and Criminal Groups of People in the World
Guest Essay by Ines Laufer
Since 2015 — the year of the Chancellor’s opening the border, facilitated by numerous illegalities — I have made a series of evaluations of police criminal statistics. In the process, it has repeatedly become obvious to me that the “refugees” who have poured unhindered, uncontrolled and in great numbers into the land are represented in crimes of violence and sexual violence to a far greater extent than Germans.
In 2016 for example, they were represented 1,000% more frequently in murders, 1,400% in violent crime and sexual violence, 4,000% in gang rapes, It is incontestable that these “refugees” are extremely violent and criminally inclined — even the “cooked” figures confirm that. But my research has uncovered something even more significant: the answer to the question, WHY. The answer will be quite unwelcome, because it is an uncompromising comment on the scope of our influence — more on that later. First, I will discuss the WHY. Only 0.7% of the “refugees” are legitimate asylum seekers under our constitution. So who are the “refugees” really?
To avoid misunderstandings: In speaking of “refugees” I refer exclusively to that group of people (ca. 1.6 million) who have come to Europe — and especially Germany — since 2015.
A glance at the publications of the Federal Office for Immigration and Refugees shows us that, at most, 0.7% of these people have a right to asylum under our constitution. Almost half of them have absolutely no claim to protection, 20% have just “second degree” need of protection.
Who are these “refugees”? What motivates them? And why are they coming in such great numbers to Germany in particular?
As early as the beginning of 2016, the European Commission determined that about 60% of the “refugees” are economic immigrants — people who hope that “flight” will improve their economic situation. In this case, the concept “economic immigrant” is misleading, since it denotes the influx of people with working skills. That is exactly what these “refugees” are NOT, for the simple reason that they are illiterate, untrained, etc. — the prerequisites are missing. Rather, they are a completely new category, which the economic scholar Gunnar Heinsohn designates “sustenance seekers” — i.e., poverty-stricken immigrants who are migrating permanently into our social welfare system.
In 2016, more of these people sought asylum in Germany than in the entire EU, Australia, New Zealand, USA and Canada put together.
[Chart too small to read — international comparison of asylum applicants and procedures]
On the basis of these numbers, it should be clear to the most inveterate dreamer that this is not about temporary protection from persecution, war, etc., but about long-term support. People feel attracted to and invited by no other country as much by Germany and its chancellor. No wonder, since the new arrivals are awaited by unlimited governmental support (even after rejection of asylum application) — full health care facilities and housing are built, there are good prospects of “family reunion,” etc., etc. Overwhelmingly Muslim, Arab and African young men… In both 2015 and 2016, ca. three-quarters of the “refugees” were Muslim.
2016 Initial asylum applications by religious affiliation
Total asylum applications:
70-90% of the Muslims are men. Young men! The percentage of masculine youth (16-18 years old) is ca. 80% — largely from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Eritrea and Nigeria.
These criteria — “young, male, Muslim and Arabic or African in origin” — are precisely what makes this group the most violence-prone, dangerous and criminal group.
These men are part of the so-called Youth Bulge — a massive oversupply of young men which must be seen as one of the most important sources of civil war, “cleansing” actions, uprisings, etc. in their lands of origin
SPIEGEL once called this horde of young, angry men the most dangerous species in the world, and the danger they represent is still on the rise, even when they are relatively well educated, medically cared-for and fed.
Wherever we look, it is always young men who are generally most criminal and violence-prone.
Just a look at the age and gender profile of the “refugees” tells us that the federal government has allowed the immigration of the most criminal and violent group of people, and without informing or preparing the population about the related, severe heightening of the danger.
2. Violence-prone socialization in the Arab and African lands of origin
A violence-free upbringing is best for preventing long-term development of criminality. Children who grow up in a loving violence-free family environment hardly ever become criminal or violent. That explains why the number of German suspects and perpetrators is falling steadily, as I pointed out in my last article. Internal family violence against children is decreasing, as violence-free upbringing increases.
[Chart showing rise of violence-free upbringing]
The profile of the “refugees” is quite different. Comprehensive studies in their lands of origin of internal family violence against children confirm an incredible and extensive amount of both physical and psychological violence by parents/family members against their children.
The Hamburg researcher on violence Sven Fuchs collects these studies and presents them in understandable form on his blog. Here are some research results on origin countries of the “refugees”:
physical and/or psychological violence 89% physical violence 78% extreme physical violence ca. 24% psychological violence 84%
physical and/or psychological violence 79% physical violence 63% extreme physical violence ca. 27% psychological violence 75%
physical and/or psychological violence 74% physical violence 69% extreme physical violence ca. 38% psychological violence 62%
It does not look much better in African countries.
Without delving too deeply into the psychological mechanisms of the transfer and reproduction of violence, the following insights are indispensable for understanding the crucial significance of internal family violence against children as the root cause of the extreme criminality among refugees. This is the inter-generational passing on of violence, and with it the permanent reproducing of the potential violent perpetrators in the next generation.
The consequences of this internal family violence are manifested not just in the family, but in considerable expressions of violence against other members of the population.
Continued physical and psychological violence in the family causes substantial introjection of these values in the affected persons and contributes to the formation of antisocial and psychopathic personalities.
This knowledge demands recognition that the extensive reach of such extreme, continuous family violence against children in the immigrants’ homelands must mean a high — extremely high in comparison to Germans — percentage of such extremely dangerous personalities among the “refugees.”
We can see that this is true in all the comparative numbers of violent crimes, as cited above, and especially in what magnitude.
It also explains why almost all the most criminal and dangerous individuals — the violent, serial offenders — can be found among the immigrants. And it explains the disturbing degree of brutality and unscrupulousness displayed by this group of offenders.
The relationship between Muslim religiosity and the tendency to violence has been researched over and over again for years.
So it was the contemporary “relativiser” Christian Pfeiffer, among others, who recently confirmed the great tendency to violence under the aegis of religion of young Muslims (who are by far the majority of “refugees”).
That is nothing new. The disproportionately high incidence of violence of Muslims in Germany was recognized ten years ago in studies by the Ministry of the Interior. The incidence of extreme violence in young Muslims — which is directly related to their religious affiliation — was and is largely ignored or inadequately confronted by authorities and political decision-makers.
This is confirmed in Germany by the best integrated Muslims or ex-Muslims, i.e. people who were born and/or raised in Muslim-dominated societies. And they explain how this horrendous incidence of violence comes about. Thus the political scientist Bassam Tibi, from Syria, indicates that Arab Muslim “refugees” import their “culture of violence” on a one-to-one basis to Germany.
The political scientist Hamed Abdel-Samad, born in Egypt, and the journalist Imad Karim, with roots in Libya, explicitly warn against accepting these Muslim “refugees,” because they bring a violent ideology from Islam.
Even far left media and advocates like HuffPo cannot help thematizing the general hostility and dangerousness of Islam.
The group-driven rejection and violence of Muslims against Christians, Jews and women creates a whole new dimension of specific problems. Today, Arab and Islamic anti-Semitism are the most dangerous forms of Jew-hatred. And this hatred is imported directly into Germany with the great majority of “refugees.” The connection between the extreme debasing of and violence against women by Muslim men and Islam is clear: “Islam states quite clearly that the man is above the woman.”
We see clearly the repercussions of the mass influx of young men whose religiously legitimized attitude toward women includes debasement and dominance and is completely incompatible with our conception of men and women, in the extreme criminality of “refugees” in rape attacks, group rape, as well as rape and sexual coercion.
Three-quarters of the young, male — and consequently highly dangerous — “refugees follow Islam in its hostility to Christians, Jews, infidels of all kinds, against whom terrorist attacks are legitimate. In this ideology, women must subject themselves and must always be available. According to this ideology, they have a solid argument for legitimizing extreme acts of violence, including Islamic attacks, and obviating any feeling of guilt.
4. Social status
It may be taken as undisputed fact that social status influences the majority of crimes, both by individuals and groups. Of course, crime occurs at all levels, but especially in the socially weaker layers. Disproportionately high crime and violence among “refugees”/foreigners is recognized by Christian Pfeiffer, who explains inter alia that “many have no job and are not socially integrated.”
It is against this background that we must see the actual conditions the “refugees” bring with them.
The reports spread by the media in 2015 of the highly trained workers we could expect in the flow of immigrants were rather quickly devalued to hoax or #Fakenews.
In reality, two-thirds of “refugees” are functionally illiterate, 88% have no training, 70% of those offered training break it off — among other reasons, because the low starting pay does not match their expectations of “earning money quickly in Germany and sending it home.” In addition there is — with few exceptions — no willingness to learn German. Research by the ARD magazine program FAKT showed that, in a German course financed by the ministry of employment, only 4% of the participants finished the course. The average is probably not much better elsewhere in the country. The financing of these virtually fruitless courses was taken from unemployment insurance — that is, from savings accounts of workers, which are supposed to take care of them in times of high unemployment. Over a quarter billion euros misdirected!
Realistic estimates by educational economist Ludger Wößmannlassen conclude that low-qualified refugees (not counting 10% academics) — despite extremely resource- and cost-intensive attempts to facilitate integration and training, have no real chance in the employment market, since one in five of the 14% low-qualified Germans is unemployed, even with the booming economy and their ready knowledge of the German language.
The fatal combination of no qualifications (language, education and training) and no desire to acquire them makes clear that “refugees” are not capable of integrating into the employment scene and are therefore NOT economic immigrants, but support seekers.
The attraction of total support relieves the “refugees” of the necessity to stand on their own two feet. So it is unavoidable that the great majority of “refugees” will, of their own doing, remain for the medium to long term in the lowest social levels. In the future, this factor will play a role in the enormous manifestation of crime and violence by “refugees.”
In these refugees the federal government has admitted the probably most criminal and dangerous people in the world into our country. The danger from them can only increase, as individual groups or their members arm themselves, whether with machetes, axes, knives, firearms or other things.
Conclusion: These insights explain the reasons for the extreme violence and criminality among “refugees.” And something else that is fundamentally important — even with the best intentions and the most intensive exertions to facilitate integration, to the point of self-sacrifice, we have no influence on the cause of extreme criminality among “refugees” (violent childhood experiences in their land of origin).
We cannot roll back the wheel of violent socialization. Nor can we influence the supporting factors (Islam and lower social status).
This means that all the government and private measures aimed at “better integration” to reduce “refugee” criminality are doomed to failure and will lead to no measurable change in the crime rate. These perceptions also unmask the “faster family reunion” pushed by the Greens, SPD, the Left and FDP, as something that will shortly cause “refugee” criminality to explode and drastically diminish security in our country. That is, young men and young-men-to-be will be brought here in great numbers, and they will have the same mixture of violence factors as those young men who are already here. And so the very real danger will escalate. With these considerations, this proposal seems like a mad attempt to put out a fire with gasoline…