Cologne's New Year's Eve Events: A Warning

What happened in Cologne (and other German cities) in New Year's Eve is the biggest warning we had about the dangers of Europe's current changes. Unlike the terrorists attacks that have shaken several european cities in the past, Cologne's events involved hundreds of men, in absolute impunity. But not only that, they also involved cover-up, and bizarre reactions from politicians.

Because not only the events that took place that night on those German cities were a warning, but even more, what has happened since then.

Just to refresh our memories, let's read how Wikipedia describes the "New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany": "During the 31 December 2015 New Year's Eve celebrations, widespread theft, alleged sexual assaults including groping, and at least two alleged instances of rape were reported across Germany, primarily within Cologne. There were also several incidents in Hamburg, several in Frankfurt, one in Stuttgart, theft in Bielefeld, and alleged sexual assault in Düsseldorf. The German Federal Criminal Police Office stated on January 9, the incidents were a phenomenon known in the Arab World as taharrush gamea.

The assaults were unreported by the national media for days and many outlets only started reporting on the incidents on January 5, after a wave of anger on social media made covering the story unavoidable."

So we have around 1,000 North Africans and Arab men in front of one of the most important monuments of Germany (Cologne's Cathedral), harassing women with complete impunity on one of the year's most popular festivities.

How the victims described what happened [BBC]:

"They grabbed our arms... pushed our clothes away, and tried to get between our legs or I don't know where. "They got everything we had in our pockets." She said German police needed to provide more protection for women and girls. "We are all really shocked that something like this could happen, especially at an event like New Year's Eve."

"All of a sudden these men around us began groping us," she said. "They touched our behinds and grabbed between our legs. They touched us everywhere. "So my girlfriend wanted to get out of the crowd. When I turned around one guy grabbed my bag and ripped it off my body." She said she felt in extreme danger, but there were no police officers to help. "I thought to myself that if we stay here in this crowd they could kill us, they could rape us and nobody would notice. I thought we simply had to accept it. "There was no one around us who helped or was in a position to help. All I wanted was to get out. "I was scared that I wouldn't leave this crowd alive. I was scared that if someone showed up with a knife I could be raped in the middle of the street."

I really think people have not comprenhended the importance of what happened: women being attacked with absolute impunity in New Year's Eve in one of the most popular touristic spots in Germany. This reminds me of those ghettos in Belgium were is said that the police just never enter... Only that this happened, as we said, in one of the most popular touristic spots in the whole Germany.


But, if this was not enough, other things happened after the attacks that are not as horrible, but as worrying, as the attacks themselves: "Police and media accused of cover-up to avoid stoking anti-immigrant feeling after witnesses say men who carried out attacks were of Arab appearance". [The Guardian] "German authorities accused of migrant attack cover up." [The Telegraph]

I always been obsessed with how the powers that be deal with information, and how they have manipulated in the past, and still manipulate our perception of events. Our perception of WW2, of the War of Kosovo, and of the conflict in Syria, are being modelled by TPTB and mass media constantly. It's not a coincidence that these events are hidden from the public, because one of the essential elements of democracy is information; if the cititzens go to vote without the whole (important) information and a deformed picture of reality, democracy is just a fiction as matrix.


But surprisingly, the Cologne attacks had the effect of un-covering similar attacks that had already taken place but hid from public knowledge: "As it turns out, the Cologne attacks were not an isolated incident. Once the story started making international headlines, reports began to trickle in from Austria, Finland, and Switzerland where women reported similar attacks perpetrated by apparent refugees.

But none of this would surprise police in Stockholm. According to Swedish media, “hordes” of young men harassed and groped young women at a youth festival and concert in central Stockholm’s Kungsträdgården last August.

Those attacks were reported to police who, according to Nyheter Idag‎, were willing to talk to prominent daily Dagens Nyheter. Unfortunately for the victims, the paper deliberately covered up the story in an effort to avoid triggering an anti-migrant backlash - or at least that’s what Nyheter Idag alleges. Here are some excerpts from the piece entitled “Exposing Major PC Cover-up in Sweden – Leading Daily Dagens Nyheter Refused to Write About Cologne-like Sex Crimes in Central Stockholm”." [Zero Hedge]

So it seems European policitians, police and media have been covering these kind of "events" to "avoid anti-migrant backlash". That's the official explanation. Truth is likely to be that the public knowledge of everything that happens around Islam would surely make their agenda ("EU should 'undermine national homogeneity' says UN migration chief") more complicated.


But if all that didn't seem scary enough, the "cherry of the pie" came with Cologne's Mayor, Henriette Reker, statements after New Year's Eve attacks: "“This means, they [women] should go out and have fun, but they need to be better prepared, especially with the Cologne carnival coming up. For this, we will publish online guidelines that these young women can read through to prepare themselves”." [Breitbart]

So this, dear readers, is the beginning of European women's rights narrowing.



Update:

We are reading lately that the attacks were coordinated. Maybe politicians think that describing these events as a terrorist attacks will make them more isolated and less frightful for the public. I don't agree at all, but we will wait to see what they come up with.


Update:

Although finally it was admitted that mostly refugees had taken part in the attacks, in the beginning, that much was denied. Like if the possibility that the attacks were committed by previous migrants and not refugees was better... It is better for those, like Merkel, who have opened the doors of Europe to muslims, but not for the common citizens.

One way or the other, one truth stands: the rights of women in muslim societies, are worth nothing. One could argue "They are not muslims, they were drinking and partying", yet they come from Muslim countries, and Islam and women rights are just not compatible; just like Islam and democracy are not compatible.



More from Wikipedia on the Cologne attacks:

"On New Years Eve witnesses reported that firecrackers were thrown into a crowd from a group of people of around 500, later in the evening more than 1000, at the square in front of Cologne's Central Station. Following this event, alleged perpetrators exploited the confusion to rob and sexually assault persons in the area and within the station. According to witnesses the alleged attackers surrounded women in groups of 30–40. According to the Cologne police report on 2 January, the suspects mostly used sexual assault (including groping) to distract victims while they robbed them of items such as mobile phones and wallets. The Police indicated that the sizes of the groups ranged from 2 to 20 people.

While Cologne mayor Henriette Reker said in a press conference on January 5, there was "no evidence, that people who are residing in Cologne as refugees are amongst the perpetrators", police president Wolfgang Albers said: "the police has no knowledge about the offenders". To some including the German Minister of justice Heiko Maas, the assaults appeared to be coordinated, the perpetrators having arrived in large groups.

On January 7, several anonymous police officers from Cologne denied statements that the police did not know the nationality of the perpetrators; they told the press that "most of them" would have been freshly immigrated asylum seekers. Contradicting statements from Cologne police leaders, these officers said that the identities of many people, including arrestees, had been thoroughly checked, so that police knew which groups of people were involved. Around 70 people had been checked, and several brought to police stations or taken into custody. The majority of those in detention were Syrians. Also, they denied information that the sexual harassments were only incidental, saying that the truth was "exactly the opposite": Most Arab perpetrators sought primarily to commit sexual offenses, or in their words "sexual amusement". Arnold Plickert, North Rhine Westphalia's representative of German police union Gewerkschaft der Polizei confirmed that asylum seekers were "definitely" involved."

Other cities: "Similar events took place in Hamburg—specifically Reeperbahn, St. Pauli—, where 53 women reported being sexually assaulted or robbed. By January 7 the number of complaints to the police in Hamburg increased to 70, by January 8 to 108, by January 12 to 153.

Crime was also reported in Düsseldorf and Frankfurt (40 complaints), as well as one crime in Stuttgart. In Düsseldorf 41 complaints of sexual assaults and theft were made to the police, after 15 were reported earlier. In Bielefeld several young women were reported to be robbed by men of North African origin in and around a discotheque.

In addition, similar assaults in Austria, Finland, Switzerland, and Sweden were reported."


About what happened in Berlin: "This was Apparently Berlin New Year's Eve. Where they got the Guns is anyone's guess but there was reports of 2 incidents of people shot by stray bullets, at least one death of a girl. A film crew from TV Channel Speigil TV were caught up in filming the incident. They released their video on 3/1/2016. 3rd of January 2016."

Did Hitler Really Win a Democratic Election?

These last French regional elections will bring the recurrent argument, against the "infalibility" of democracy, that "Hitler won a democratic elections".

The way Hitler made his way into "winning" the elections was fairly irregular: "...in July and November 1932, the Nazis received 38% and 33% of the vote, respectively — a plurality but not enough to bring them into government. In the 1932 presidential election, Hitler lost to Hindenburg by a wide margin.

Hitler came to power not through elections, but because Hindenburg and the circle around Hindenburg ultimately decided to appoint him chancellor in January 1933. This was the result of backroom dealing and power politics, not any kind of popular vote." [LobeLog]

More about Hitler's appointment as Chancellor.

But in my opinion it is frequently forgotten the part played by the SA in Hitler's rise:

"The SA (Sturmabteilung or Storm Detachment) was better known as the Brownshirts or Storm Troopers. (...) From 1921 to 1933 the SA disrupted the meetings of Adolf Hitler’s political opponents as well as defended the halls where Hitler was making a speech in public." [historylearningsite.co.uk]

"Under [Ernst] Röhm SA membership, swelled from the ranks of the Great Depression’s unemployed, grew to 400,000 by 1932 and to perhaps 2,000,000—20 times the size of the regular army—by the time that Hitler came to power in 1933." [Britannica]

Imagine the power of this "parallel army" considering the importance of mass media on those times, when they were limited to newspapers and radio.

George Soros Interview for Spiegel

"SPIEGEL ONLINE: In Germany, once the motor of European integration, people are openly discussing the possibility of leaving the euro zone. Many Germans believe that a return to the deutschmark would be cheaper than to remain stuck in a flawed currency union. Are they right?

Soros: There is no question that a breakup of the euro would be very damaging, very costly, both financially and politically. And the biggest loss would be incurred by Germany. Germans have to bear in mind that, effectively, they have suffered practically no losses so far. Transfers have all been in the form of loans, and it is only when the loans are not repaid that real losses will be incurred.

(...)

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Once again: How is that Germany's fault?

Soros: This is the joint responsibility of everyone who was involved in the introduction of the euro without understanding the consequences. When the euro was introduced, the regulators allowed banks to buy unlimited amounts of government bonds without setting aside any equity capital. And the European Central Bank discounted all government bonds on equal terms. So commercial banks found it advantageous to accumulate the bonds of the weaker countries to earn a few extra basis points.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: And that then dragged down interest rates?

Soros: Yes. The lower interest rates fueled housing and consumption booms in countries such as Spain and Ireland. At the same time, Germany, struggling with the burdens of reunification, tightened its belt and became more competitive. All this led to a wide divergence in economic performance. Europe became divided into creditor and debtor countries. All these conditions were created by European authorities, including the European Central Bank, which was largely modeled after the Bundesbank. Germans tend to forget now that the euro was largely a Franco-German creation. No country has benefited more from the euro than Germany, both politically and economically. Therefore what has happened as a result of the introduction of the euro is largely Germany's Schuld -- its responsibility.

(...)

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you think Angela Merkel is prepared to take such steps?

Soros: She is trapped. Merkel has realized that the euro is not working, but she cannot change the narrative she has created because that narrative has caught the imagination of the German public, and the German public has accepted it.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The narrative essentially says that crisis-stricken nations simply haven't made the necessary reforms, unlike Germany.

Soros: Right. But at the same time, Chancellor Merkel realizes that what is happening is not working, and so she is determined to preserve the euro.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble gave an interview to SPIEGEL saying that now is the time for bold steps. He outlined ideas for a closer political union in Europe.

Soros: Schäuble is representative of the Germany of Helmut Kohl. He is the last European standing, and he is a tragic figure, because he understands what needs to be done, but he also realizes the obstacles that stand in the way, and he cannot find a way to overcome these obstacles. So he is really suffering.

(...)

SPIEGEL ONLINE: If you were still an active investor, would you be tempted to make massive bets against the euro?

Soros: As an investor, I would be very pessimistic, especially about Europe. But as a believer in an open society, I have to put my faith in the people and leaders of Europe to show some reason." [Spiegel Online]

via B.

La farsa de la seguridad en los aeropuertos

Cualquiera que haya volado en los últimos años habrá sufrido las crecientes medidas de seguridad. Detector de metales, todos los objetos personales en una bandeja de plástico (incluido cinturón), mujeres descalzas por llevar zapatos de tacón, líquidos de menos de 100ml en una bolsa de plástico transparente... Todo totalmente arbitrario y ridículo.

Aun así, en la mayoría de encuestas los pasajeros aprueban estas medidas en aras de una mayor seguridad.

En realidad, todas estas medidas no sirven prácticamente para nada, salvo para dar a los pasajeros una falsa sensación de seguridad. Cometer un atentado es lamentablemente fácil, en el momento en que alguien deja de considerar que la vida humana tiene valor, o en nombre de su fe, justifica la muerte de los que tienen una religión distinta. Para asesinar a cientos, no es necesario secuestrar un avión o estrellarlo contra un rascacielos. Lo vimos en Atocha. El riesgo cero de sufrir un atentado no existe y debemos hallar el equilibrio entre garantizar la seguridad y la dignidad de los pasajeros.

En primer lugar, los controles de seguridad los llevan a cabo, en la mayoría de los casos, empresas de seguridad privadas. Es decir, trabajadores del sectro privado con escasa preparación reciben de los Estados la facultad de decidir, con casi total arbitrariedad, qué puede y qué no puede subirse a un avión.

El tema de los líquidos es especialmente curioso, rayando a veces el absurdo. En un vuelo de regreso de Sofia (Bulgaria) vi confiscar un tarró de mermelada de la famosa Rosa de Bulgaria. Aparte de la evidencia de que la mermelada no es un líquido, en todo caso se trataría de un fluido. Pero además se da la paradoja de que en el mismo tarro de mermelada, la medida de cantidad utilizada era el de peso (en gramos), no el de volumen (en mililitros). Así pues, mientras el ministerio de comercio o industria considera que la mermelada no es un líquido, el ministerio de interior considera que sí es un líquido (o, al menos, un sujeto con potestad concedida por dicho ministerio) así lo decide.

En otro vuelo, desde Berlin, concretamente desde el aeropuerto de Schönefeld, unos especialmente maleducados "agentes" de seguridad confiscaron un tarro de gomina a una persona y obligaron a otras dos a "adquirir" (es decir comprar) unas bolsas de plástico transparentes donde introducir los líquidos que transportaban... Eso sí, después de ya haber pasado el control de seguridad. Además el precio de las bolsas era de un euro; es decir unas bolsas de plástico transparentes de coste de fabricación probablemente menor a 0,05 euros son impuestas a todos los pasajeros que transportan cualquier cantidad de líquidos (menor de 100ml, claro) a un precio de 1 euro. Sí, señor, un negocio perfecto (aunque tenga más de chantaje que de negocio legal).

Otra cuestión interesante es que la práctica de controlar el acceso de líquidos al avión se estuvo aplicando ILEGALMENTE durante seis años. Esto es debido a que no existía un reglamento que regulase esta normativa, y así lo dictamino el tribunal de la UE [La Vanguardia].

Las conclusiones de la abogada general del Tribunal de Justicia de la UE, Eleanor Sharpston, son demoledoras. La deliberada decisión de no publicar la lista de artículos prohibidos en el equipaje de mano "es un vicio de tal gravedad que no puede ser tolerado por el ordenamiento jurídico comunitario", defiende."

Justamente, al mismo tiempo que el Tribunal de la UE dictaminaba que dicha práctica era ilegal, se publicaba dicha normativa para poder seguir confiscando a placer.

Además, ¿por qué se prohiben líquidos o se escanean zapatos? La teoría es que se detectó que comandos terroristas planeaban utilizar estos sistemas para atentar en aviones.

Pero de estos comandos nunca más se supo, la mayoría fueron absultos por falta de pruebas. Nunca sabremos con qué pruebas fueron detenidos, si realmente planeaban atentar con explosivos líquidos, si los tenían o no, si eran efectivos o no...

Lo mismo sucede con los explosivos en los tacones de zapatos. Es de sentido común que un explosivo escondido en tal lugar no puede tener la potencia suficiente para provocar la caida de un avión, a no ser que se trate de un explosivo de última generación, el cual probablemente tampoco sería detectado en los controles de seguridad.

La gran mayoría de la población aprueba los crecientes controles de seguridad. En cambio se suben a un coche con cualquiera: con alguien que ha bebido más de la cuenta, con conductores temerarios... Y aunque la probabilidad de morir en un accidente de coche es muchísimo mayor que la de morir en un accidente aéreo (no digamos ya, la de morir en un atentando terrorista en vuelo) protestan por el aumento de los controles de tráfico y se alegran del aumento de los controles aéreos...