In late 2007, German politician Roland Koch began speaking about the increase in immigrant youth crimes in Germany in the German equivalent of those same terms. Initially, this sparked a hailstorm of criticism. But, just a few weeks later, the reality of the situation was confirmed when a 76-year old German man was assaulted by two foreigners on a Munich-bound train. The old man had asked the foreigners to stop smoking on board and they responded by calling him a "shit German". After being spit at, the old man tried to step off the train but the foreigners followed, beating and kicking him in the head, resulting in a fractured skull and internal bleeding in the brain.
If the Munich incident was any indication, Koch had correctly identified the problem. But it was odd that Koch had been so honest in his diagnosis; politicians like him typically advocate multiculturalism, the asylum state and turning Germany into an immigrant state, so the last thing you would think they want to do is to say that a rise in crime is an "immigrant" problem, which can turn the people against immigration. This is especially the case because Koch's current party, the CDU, is the party of Angela Merkel, Germany's leader, who is very much in favor of multiculturalism, the asylum state and turning Germany into an immigrant state. So what gives?
I would say, first and foremost, that the public is becoming increasingly aware of the problems attributable to attempted integration and Koch's strategy is to stretch the party's constituency to include the resistance to itself and even more leftist positions. Perhaps Koch is also at odds with his own party. In which case, one might expect his future departure from it.
Either way, Koch is bringing an issue to the table that cannot be treated with silence forever. Mainstream politicians and news media will have to figure out a strategy to address the problem and do so without reinforcing the arguments or contributing to the growth of anti-mainstream movements. Because, if they do not, that will reinforce the arguments and contribute to the growth of anti-mainstream movements. Up until now, the mainstream media has simply tried to keep its reports on migrant crime compatible with the push for immigration. For instance, crimes committed by immigrant youths have often been referred to as "youth crimes." Noticeably, that is the strategy for dealing with the migrant problems in France (shown, for example, here). Hiding the ethnic background of the perpetrators helps keep the public from suspecting that integration is a problem. Nonetheless, hiding what is happening in code words is a strategy that is begging to be mocked and it will be just a matter of time until it is by the right figure who will supercharge the issue by exposing it bare. The public can only be fooled for so long.
There are other strategies to put in play, however. We see this every time a news report amplifies the allegation that a migrant was attacked by someone opposed to immigration. The "genius" is it does not require the public to believe that integration is working. The strategy is to admit that this is the case and then make it the fault the native population. At first, this might not make sense to the reader, because the desirability and feasibility of integration does not appear to be affirmed in the process. But look closer and you will soon understand that reported incidents of anti-migrant violence, spawned by native resentment to immigration, are pivotal for a multicultural agenda.
In Germany, for example, if a German attacks a foreigner, it will trigger a "Nazi alarm" - that is, it generates front page news and sends Germany into a whirlwind (as anything likened to "Nazis" does). Then, any complaints that multiculturalism isn't working, that foreigners are incompatible with German society or that the immigrants aren't learning German or respecting German culture, the whole list of complaints, is whitewashed by the news like a wall attacked with a bucket of white, whitewashing paint. Suddenly, everyone is concerned about "Nazis" in the native population instead and completely distracted from migrant crime.
Besides burying the consequences of their policies, multiculturalists also benefit because now they have concerned parents wanting children to be exposed to more school day sermons about multiculturalism and tolerance to supposedly prevent another incident. In turn, multicultural foundations get more funding and educators are pushed to provide more multicultural education. The importance of this cause-and-effect relationship should not be underestimated. Through multicultural training, German youth unlearn an appreciation for their own culture and society and lose the sense of identity formed through interactions with their parents and community. Already told about the "Nazis" of history, portrayed as the pinnacle of all that is evil, students are now bombarded with the understanding that this is the result of rejecting the ideology they have just been sold on. Students of multiculturalism come to believe that nationalist and immigration-conservative parties, by endorsing a natural appreciation for their own people, culture and nationality, are on par with a lab creating "Nazis" in their basement, because they legitimize hostile attitudes towards foreigners that could spark resentment, anger and therefore a lashing out via anti-foreigner violence. Unless said things are learned or unlearned accordingly, support for multiculturalism, a rejection of nativist politics, cannot be as certain.
The above atmosphere also allows for multiculturalists to go after those parties that oppose them directly. Take, for example, the response to a 17-year-old girl's claim that "some Neo-Nazis" from eastern Germany had cut a swastika symbol into her hip. The incident, widely reported throughout the German media circuit, was used to argue that the National Democratic Party (NPD) should be banned. See, for example, this excerpt in the popular legacy media magazine Der Spiegel:
Calls by some politicians to ban the far-right NPD party were renewed most recently after an attack on a 17-year-old girl on Nov. 3 in the town of Mittweida. Violent extremists scratched a swastika in the girl's hip after she tried to help a 6-year-old girl being harassed by four men. (more)
Not only is it absurd to believe that the mere existence of a political party inspired the attack in Mittweida, but, as it turns out, the alleged crime was a hoax. The girl had lied about being attacked by Neo-Nazis and actually carved a swastika into her own leg to "prove" it (additional sources: here and here). This isn't the first time something like this has happened:
in 1994, a girl claimed that she had been attacked in the eastern German city of Halle. Horrified by the incident, 10,000 people gathered to protest against "Neo-Nazis" in the east and the crimes they were allegedly committing. The catch: the girl made the whole attack up.
- in December 2002, a 14-year-old girl of mixed ancestry carved a swastika into her cheek and reported to German police in the small, eastern German town of Guben. The girl claimed that she had been attacked by "Neo-Nazis", which she later admitted was completely false.
That brings us to the alleged "Neo-Nazi attack mob" from the small city of Mügeln in eastern Germany. For months, the media generated horrific headlines about the mob and depicted a band of brutish eastern German Neo-Nazi thugs shouting racial slurs and hunting down eight Indian men to pulverize. Meanwhile, the press howled about the support that the NPD had had in the Mügeln region. The mainstream political parties joined in, and began pressuring for more multicultural awareness programs. But the story that had made headline news was nothing close to the truth; as it turns out, one of the Indians had pulled a knife on a German in a dance club and the confrontation between the two men had escalated outside. The fable about the "attack mob" fell apart, and all but one of the Germans who had been taken into custody were cleared from the investigation. So much for the image in the media - and so much for the "Nazi alarm".
It seems the, each time, desire for attention, empowerment by claiming victimization, benefits of the "Nazi alarm" and public gullibility all collide to create a universe committed to constantly churning out a different itineration of the same fantasy. Each time, the story is propagated for mass effect, with the only downside being the expose somewhere down the line. When the media is committed to multiculturalism, though, the expose does not get much exposure. So, in conclusion, be aware of the strategies that are constantly being employed. Be wary of the modern version of WW1 "bayonetting babies" atrocity propaganda. And don't forget: the greatest weapon is the truth!
