We set out to find out which of these cities are safe for women – and which need to do more to ensure women are not at risk of sexual violence and harassment and harmful cultural practices and have access to healthcare, finance and education.
In each of the 19 megacities, we contacted 20 experts focused on women’s issues including academics, non-government organisation workers, healthcare staff, policy-makers, and social commentators.
Here is what they found:
Safety from “cultural practices”
Safety from sexual violence
In an earlier post I noted that Moscow is the last and only megacity in the world where Europeans remain a solid majority.
About two thirds of the USSR’s 27 million casualties were civilians – that is, almost 10% of its prewar population. Had those percentages been applied to Nazi Germany, it would lost 8 million people – an order of magnitude than the 400,000 civilians it lost due to Allied strategic bombing, and the 600,000 who died during the expulsions of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe (the vast majority of which were carried out by local authorities, not the Red Army or the NKVD).
About 3.3 million out of 5.7 million Soviet POWs died in Nazi custody (compared to 15% of German POWs in the half-starved USSR, and low single digit figures for Allied POWs in Nazi Germany). Had the Soviets treated its 4.2 million German POWs as harshly, with a death rate of 60%, the German number of military dead would have risen from 5.3 million to around 7.3 million. That’s not far off the figure of 8.7 million Soviet military deaths (9.2 million taking into account unregistered militia in 1941).
It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest. If we count probabilities, assuming there was a 50% chance of Nazi victory over the USSR in 1941-42, and a 50% chance of Generalplan Ost being implemented in its full scale, that translates to around 200 million times 25% equals 50 million additional deaths. This means that in the average of all possible timelines, about 75 million Soviet citizens died, or 37.5% of its prewar population. That translates to around 30 million if these percentages are applied to Germany and its East European diaspora.
And yet for some people – for the most part, the most Rusophobic neocons and Cold Warriors, the more Nazi elements of the Alt Right, and deranged Poles and Balts who don’t quite realize what Hitler had in store for them – the Soviet rape of about 2 million women in Eastern Germany at the end of the war is supposed to be a really huge, defining war crime, even something that delegitimizes the overall Soviet victory.*
How many rapes is one death/murder “worth”? My intuition is that murder is quite a lot worse, perhaps by an order of magnitude if I had to quantify it, and I suspect that most people will agree. It just so happens that so do sentencing guidelines. The typical term for murder in the US is 30 years to life (which might functionally translate to an average of 50 years). The average term for rape is 10 years, of which about 5 are served. This is a differential of five. It also happens to be almost exactly the differential between the murder rate in the US (~5 cases / 100,000 anually) and the rate of rape and sexual assault (~30 / 100,000 annually, as per police records and self-victimization surveys). Let us then provisionally estimate that rape is on average 20% as “bad” as murder. (Note: I actually think it’s considerably less, because sentencing for murder is range constricted by biological ageing. And the homicide problem is usually considered to be worse than the sexual violence one, even though there are usually far fewer of them than there are rapes).
Therefore, let’s say 2 million rapes translates to 400,000 deaths. Compare this to 27 million Soviet civilian deaths (of which two thirds were civilians) in a war started by Nazi Germany, or the 75 million or so Soviet deaths across all timelines. Even assuming that the worst estimates of the Red Army rapes are accurate – they were still, at most, equivalent to far less than 1% of the Nazi crimes against Russia.
Now to be sure you can argue that not all “murders” are equal, especially in war. Direct genocide, like the gassings of Jews or the massacres of Belorussian villagers, seems to be worse than deaths incurred by incidental effects of war, such as bombings of industrial facilities or famine incurred due to the stresses of the war effort, which in turn are worse than military deaths, since society tends to consider soldiers as pretty much “fair game” (though it is questionable to what extent this can be applied to conscripts on the Eastern Front, who did not even get the theoretical possibility of opting out by applying for a “conscientious objector” status at the cost of their social reputation, as in the less “total” conflict of World War I). But there are many different types of rapes as well. There were traumatic gang rapes, to military brothels relying on considerable degrees of coercion, to women semi-voluntarily hooking up with one particular soldier in return for security, or just trading their bodies for food.
Furthermore, contrary to the myth of the “clean Wehrmacht” spread by retired Nazi generals and their wehraboo admirers after the war, there was plenty of rape amongst German soldiers in the USSR. For instance, here is a quote from historian Alexander Dyukov’s 2007 book “What the Soviet People Fought For”:
Rape continued, and acquired an organized character. From time to time “hunting groups” ventured out of Wehrmacht positions. “We ventured out to the village near Rozhdestvenno near Gatchina,” said Peter Schuber, a private who was at the Seversky airport, “We had orders to bring girls to the officers. We did the operation successfully, surrounding all the houses. We grabbed a truckload of girls. The officers held the girls all night, and gave them to us soldiers in the morning.”
In the large cities, permanent brothels were organized. This was standard Wehrmacht practice. “There were military brothels, called Puff,” recalls SS officer Avenir Benningsen, “They were present on almost all fronts. Girls from all Europe, all nationalities, gathered up from all camps. By the way, the two condoms regularly handed out to men and officers were indispensable posessions.” But whereas in the European countries the Wehrmacht brothels were staffed more or less voluntarily, in the USSR there were no such considerations. Girls and women were forcibly rounded up, in scenes seared into the memories of people undergoing the occupation. In Smolensk, for instance, women were dragged off by the arms, by the hair, dragged along the pavement, into the officers’ brothel in one of the hotels. Those who refused to remain there were shot.
After Red Army soldiers drove the Germans out of Kerch, they encoutered a terrible sight: “In the courtyard of the prison there was a shapeless heap of naked female bodies, horrifically mutilated by the fascists.”
So even if we are to tally sexual crimes completely separately, the rapes of the Wehrmacht carried an organized, long-term character – similar to the Japanese Army’s abuse of Chinese and Korean comfort women – whereas Red Army rapes happened in a concentrated orgy of violence in the last few months of the war. That fury in turn was fueled by a regrettable but very understandable hatred for the death and devastation the Germans had wreaked in the USSR, made all the more inexplicable by the overwhelming prosperity of the Germans relative to the ramshackle poverty of Soviet life.
Incidentally, soon after the war, as the follow-up to his “toast to the Russian people,” Stalin presided over another famine that took 500,000 Russian lives (more than fifty years after the worst famine of late Imperial Russia, in which a similar number died). Why? Because the USSR was exporting grain to support its new Communist client states, including East Germany. (Functionally, Stalin agreed with the Nazis that German lives were worth more than Russian lives). This one event alone is by utilitarian metrics considerably more horrific than all the Red Army rapes in Germany.
The real “Soviet Story“: Stalin mutilates Russia. Hitler mutilates Russia. Stalin mutilates Hitler, then mutilates Russia some more. Russophobe ideologues conclude that Russia is as bad as Hitler (if not worse).
Just people who insist on questioning the lethality of Zyklon B or how many people the shower rooms in Auschwitz could accomodate tend to have motives that are suspect, to put it mildly, so it is a pretty good bet that anyone who consistently gives primacy to the Red Army rapes and looting in Germany when discussing the moral weightings of the USSR vs. Nazi Germany might sooner be looking to replay Hitler’s/Stalin’s joint genocide against Russia.
* I would note that there are questions about whether there actually were that many Red Army rapes in Germany; for instance, there are arguments that they are based on unrealistic extrapolations from a small sample of abortion statistics. I haven’t studied this issue in any depth myself and will assume that the conventional mass rape narrative is broadly correct. If this is not the case and there actually were much fewer rapes, that makes the main argument even stronger.
One of the problems critics of mass immigration face is that there aren’t that many concrete statistics on their crime rates (substantially thanks to European institutions being in the habit of forbidding the gathering of said race/ethnicity data).
But things do leak through every now and then and more often than not they tend to confirm the hateful stereotypes.
Latest example: The German Federal Criminal Office compiles data on “nationality of suspect” across different criminal categories current up to 2014 (see Table 62). In the last year before the Great Migration, immigrants – accounting for less than 10% of the population – were responsible for 18% of rapes and 30% of murders. One enterprising fellow who presumably prefers to remain anonymous compiled a big infographic combining the criminal and demographic data to produce estimates of criminality rates by different crime categories and country of origin. (The infographic is attached at the bottom of this post, which the stats for perhaps the two most important/topical indicators, homicide rates and rape rates, are reprinted).
Murder / 100,000
Country of Origin
Sexual Assault/Rape Rates / 100,000
Country of Origin
Sexual Assault/Rape Rates
Frankly even I was rather surprised by some of these figures – perhaps not so much the figures on rape, but I do find the killer performance of the likes of Lebanon, Tunisia and Algeria in the homicide rates to be unduly impressive. After all, according to international homicide rate statistics, the Maghreb is actually rather civilized – 2.2/100,000 in Tunisia and Morocco, and a mere 0.7/100,000 in Algeria (lower than in Germany itself at 0.8/100,000). Lebanon for all its chaos is also at 2.2/100,000. Homicide rates are the one major type of crime that can be reliably measured across countries, so that actually makes them safer than large chunks of Eastern Europe, including Poland before the 2000s. But for some reason when they come to Europe their homicide rates soar by an order of magnitude.
What could be the cause? Lower migrant quality relative to their average population? Being overwhelmingly drawn from ethnic groups with a higher relative proposensity towards violence? (hbd*chick noticed that a disproportionate number of Muslim terrorists in the Paris Attacks had Berber backgrounds; does this extend to “ordinary” criminal violence?). Or perhaps this is one case where it is not so much a case of ethnicity as of culture – namely, traditional and/or authoritarian societies being better at keeping a lid on violent crime than the dissolute anomie of Western urbanism? I don’t know, but this discrepancy has to be explained.
Note that 70% of prisoners in French jails are Muslim. Of course most French Muslims are from the Maghreb. Originally I thought there might be some scintilla of truth to liberal claims that this proves that France is structurally racist towards its Muslim minorities because I was aware that the countries where French Muslims come from aren’t that violent overall so it’s strange so many of them would be in jail. But if they acquire the criminological profiles of American Negroes on coming to Europe, then the preponderance of French Muslims in orange becomes perfectly explainable.
It also becomes easier to see why the latest wave of immigration has been such a shock to Europe and elicited such strong headlines in the right-wing press. The current wave of migrants into Germany and Europe tend to have rape rates around 5x the native German norm according to its own police statistics. Moreover, this refers to presumably established migrant communities – with relatively more women and older people – whereas the current influx has generally been acknowledged to be primarily composed of young males. This means it is entirely plausible for even relatively “small” numbers of those immigrants (the million or so who came into Germany in 2015) to have a hugely disproportionate impact on crime rates that would be noticeable even in a country of 80 million.
International statistics on rape per 100,000 people are all but useless because – unlike, say, homicides – the definition of rape is so incredibly culturally mediated. I am sorry but it is implausible that even today’s Sweden Yes! has a rape rate 500 times that of Pakistan under any even minimally equivalent definition of the term. If you need to be explained why then you are a lost cause and are advised to stop reading now to avoid getting triggered.
To get something resembling reality we need to look at victimization surveys. To be fair, definitions of physical and sexual abuse presumably differ between countries where the husband has a legal right to physically discipline his wife (or wives) and countries where pressuring a non-working female spouse into following a budget has been criminalized as “coercive control.”
But things are now at least broadly comparable.
One 2005 WHO study surveyed physical and sexual violence rates against women in Brazil, Ethiopia, Japan, Namibia, Peru, Samoa, Serbia, Thailand, and Tanzania during (a) the past 12 months and (b) ever. Of course as a WHO study they aren’t allowed to make any realistic conclusions – they tamely ascribed the comparatively very low rates of violence against women in Japan and Serbia to “different levels of economic development” (Serbia in particular being well known for its prosperity having been enriched by NATO bombs just 6 years earlier).
Only a very small (~2-3%?) percentage of Japanese and Serbia women reported being subjected to violence by their partners in the past year, although significantly more – ~15% in Japan, ~20% in Serbia – reported it for their entire lives (this despite Serbia being at war for most of the 1990s). In the African countries, 20%-50% of women reported being subjected to violence in the past year alone, and 40%-almost 70% during their lifetimes. Latin America and Thailand were generally in between Japan/Serbia and Africa.
It appears that there is a threshold level somewhere around the 25-30% mark of women reporting any experience of partner violence ever. Any lower, and the yearly risk of violence tends to be in the low single digits of a percentage; significantly higher, and it quickly ballons to 10%, 20%, or even more.
According to this report, about a third of women across the world have experienced physical or sexual violence by a partner. The distribution was much as those of us who make a habit of noticing might have expected: Consistently high in Africa, the Middle East, and South and South-East Asia; much lower in East Asia and Europe; and the Americas in between.
They also had a more detailed breakdown by region and by the prevalence of (a) intimate partner violence and (b) non-partner sexual violence.
It is a mixed picture to be sure, but one pattern is clear: Rates of partner violence tend to be low in East Asia, Western Europe, and North America; middling in Central and East Europe, and in much of Latin America; and high in South Asia, Africa, and – yes – the Middle East. (Note also that 3 out of the 10 non-high income European countries included in the WHO figures for Europe are majority Islamic: Albania, Azerbaijan, Turkey. This might have inflated the Eastern European average by a bit. Without a more detailed national breakdown, it’s impossible to say.)
Although in terms of non-partner sexual violence the Middle East appears safe, this has a trivially simple explanation:
In short, there are reasons why women in the Middle East, South Asia, and apparently (if to a smaller extent) in Central America are segregated and kept out of the workforce. The rare stupid foreign woman who insists on making an exception is quickly schooled in local mores (just Google search “Tahrir” and “female journalist”).
That is because these societies – the ones European elites are importing en masse – have evolved their own set of solutions to the issues they have with violence against women.
Laugh at her as you will, but in a way the feminist/Green mayor of Cologne, Henriette Reker, is far more reasonable in her advice to women in an Islamizing country that they would do well to self-segregate themselves – keep men at an arm’s distance, stay in groups, avoid public gatherings – than her critics, the blank slate true believers, who imagine that a Pakistani youth plucked out of his village will automatically start behaving like a European when transposed to a German metropolis.
Laws banning incest between brothers and sisters in Germany could be scrapped after a government ethics committee said the they were an unacceptable intrusion into the right to sexual self-determination.
“Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo,” the German Ethics Council said in a statement. “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.”
This is a one up even on the Muslims who at least stop at first cousins.
Which of course brings us to recent events in Cologne.
Cousin marriage, especially the father’s brother’s daughter type, is extremely prevalent across the Muslim world. It is also almost unheard of in Christian Europe. It is pretty well known even from perusing MSM outlets that these cousin marriages result in high levels of genetic defects.
Venturing into the twilight realm of what is and what is not politically correct, it is well established in the literature that the children of close cousins take massive hits on IQ. That less intelligent people are more impulsive and more likely to commit crimes is also well established.
Finally, and most germane to the newly flourishing rape culture of Cologne, are the social accoutrements of the mass cousin marriage institution.
What happens if a very large percentage of the girls and young women in a society have their choice of potential future marriage partners tightly circumscribed, and indeed, largely predetermined?
It means that women will be kept out of the public sphere – veiling, segregation, accompaniment by male guardians. You don’t want some young strapping village lad throwing a wrench in the family arrangements.
It means a severe shortage of their own women, especially for younger Muslim males. What to do if your cousin is slated to marry off some older cousin in Pakistan, and you don’t have the gold or the seduction XP to game the loosely dressed and unsupervised local women? You resort to the rape game, as we have seen from the institutionalized grooming in Rotherham and other UK cities to the recent wave of mass enrichment in Cologne to mark the new year.
It need hardly be said but the usual SJWs and feminists have gone crickets, and apart from the ritualistic expressions of outrage, the German state shows no signs of abating on its policy of closing the blinds and pretending the train is still moving. The female Green mayor of Cologne Henriette Reker went one further and suggested German women adopt a code of conduct to prevent future assault.
The suggested code of conduct includes maintaining an arm’s length distance from strangers, to stick within your own group, to ask bystanders for help or to intervene as a witness, or to inform the police if you are the victim of such an assault.
Why not go the full hog straight away and put on a burqa while you’re at it.
The radical feminists have alwaysbeen just fine with it, and in the end, it will become a matter of practical safety anyway, as it has amongst Christian communities in the Middle East.
When should we expect that?
Now to be sure, there are still good reasons to be be skeptical of the “Eurabia” thesis. After all, to keep the focus on Germany, 1, 2, or even 5 million new immigrants would still be relatively minor compared to the German population of 80 million. Fertility rates will converge; Merkel will flip-flop again, or be voted out of office; and walls will go up again.
This is a mistaken view, according to a recent argument by Adorján F. Kovács, a German surgeon and publicist.
The gist of the argument is that number we should be looking at is not so much 80 million as 800,000 – the typical number of yearly births Germany has had since the mid-1970s. And of which a consistent 10%-20% accrued to immigrant parents even back then.
Suddenly, when compared against the much diminished size of the youngest German cohorts, what at first might seem like a trickle becomes a flood. Put another way, the 1 million or so immigrants that were officially registered in Germany this year represent one a half year’s worth of the younger ethnic German cohorts.
A much more accurate picture of the influx can be obtained when it is compared to the already existing German population within this same age group, Professor Kovács says.
In other words, the current native—European—German population aged between 20 and 35, excluding the new wave of invaders, stands at 11.5 million people.
Working on a rough figure of around a million invaders coming to Germany every year for the next few years—and the real figure may be higher—it is perfectly reasonable to expect a total “asylum-seeking” population in Germany of between three and four million by the year 2020.
This is, however, only the tip of the iceberg. Presuming, Professor Kovács says, that only half this number will actually be granted asylum and stay in Germany, this means that there will be around two million successful applicants by 2020.
“The fact that the majority of so-called asylum seekers are men, means that in almost all the cases, a successful bid for family reunification will be made.
“This will add between three and eight extra persons per successful asylum seeker, which means that by 2020 the total number of this group will be in excess of eight million.”
The fact that that are currently only 11.5 million European Germans in the 20- to 30- year-old age group means that by 2020—just four years away—white Germans will be an outright minority in this age category.
“Of the 23 million people in this country who are between 20 and 35 years, approximately 11.5 million people have a migration background within five years,” Professor Kovács says.
Furthermore, the higher birth rate of immigrants “has not even been factored in,” he continued.
“You have to think ahead 30 years. If the majority, that is, more than 50 percent of those now living in Germany are elderly, and will have died within that time, it takes no imagination to get an idea of the composition of the future German population.”
According to PEW estimates, the fertility rate of German Muslims is 1.8 children per woman during 2005-10, versus 1.3 children per woman for the non-Muslims (see right).
And one supposes that as the numbers pile up those women who do not feel Islam is all that congruent with feminist ideals, and those men who are not tempted into living out a polygamous Houellebecqian fantasy, will start to emigrate en masse, further accelerating the process of population replacement.
It is still not too late to turn things around and won’t be for a number of years yet (previously it would have been measured in decades). In my own social networks I am even beginning to observe some formerly enthusiastic #RefugeesWelcome people expressing shock and rage at the events in Cologne (admittedly there’s some self-selection going on here because any of the truly rabid SJWs would have long since DeFriended me). After all, a dozen bad apples, as in the Paris Attacks, are presumably easier to explain away more than a thousand strong “group of people who mostly come from her in appearance from the North African and Arab countries” (to use the least obfuscatory official phraseology).
Still, considering the bizarre and abrupt manner in which Merkel pivoted from calling multiculturalism a failure and openly saying that immigrants are “more criminal” to opening the gates wide open and leaning on Zuckerberg and other social media to stamp out “hate” on social media, it is not beyond plausible reason that there are darker and more powerful designs at work that are fundamentally ringfenced from open debate and democratic choice.
I am a blogger, thinker, and businessman in the SF Bay Area. I’m originally from Russia, spent many years in Britain, and studied at U.C. Berkeley.
One of my tenets is that ideologies tend to suck. As such, I hesitate about attaching labels to myself. That said, if it’s really necessary, I suppose “liberal-conservative neoreactionary” would be close enough.
Though I consider myself part of the Orthodox Church, my philosophy and spiritual views are more influenced by digital physics, Gnosticism, and Russian cosmism than anything specifically Judeo-Christian.
This is not so much meant to be comprehensive as to illustrate the themes and individual thinkers whom I follow and am inspired by.
I do not bother including any MSM outlets, since I’m sure they can do just fine without my publicity.
Blogs which I consider to be particularly good and/or prominent are highlighted in bold, and blogs that appear to have gone dormant appear at the end in italics. While I try to keep these things objective, if you include me in your blogroll that does vastly increase the chances that I’ll reciprocate.