Friday, November 24, 2017

Feeling Your Feelings

This will not make your day. It didn’t make my day. And yet, I do feel a duty to report on the latest from the therapy culture. We all want to know what the therapy culture is trafficking these days. Consider this a way of introducing the latest piece of silliness offered by New York Magazine’s Ask Polly column.

If you have read previous commentaries on this highly challenged advice columnist you will recall that I have often mocked her mindless tendency to tell people to feel their feelings. The term keeps coming up, as though it were a mantra. One might respond by asking this salient question: If you want to feel your feelings or if you want to get in touch with your feelings, where should you put your hands?

But I digress.

In Polly’s most recent letter she does her best to validate my caricature. For that, on this day after Thanksgiving, I am grateful.

Polly opens her response with this:

You’re afraid to feel your feelings in the moment and to attach them directly to what’s happening in the moment. You save up all of your bad feelings instead, to keep things clean, to avoid sounding whiny, to avoid making a mess. 

Get it? If not, try this:

But you have to start feeling your feelings and standing up for yourself or this passive, unhappy state you’re in isn’t going to improve.

Or this:

But now you have no idea how to live in reality, how to feel the current moment. I want you to know this one thing, even if you ignore everything else: Nothing will bring you more real satisfaction than learning how to live in reality and feel what you feel, good and bad, ugly and beautiful, without guilt and shame.

Of course, feeling your feelings and living in reality are not the same thing. If you really want to feel your feelings you need to withdraw from reality and get into yourself. Unfortunately, this kind of mental drool passes for wisdom in today’s therapy culture.

While we are at it, let’s not overlook Polly’s enhanced empathy. She labels the letter writer thusly:

You’re a classic self-blaming overachieving perfectionist.

Perhaps that diagnosis will make its way into the next version of the DSM, but clearly Polly is blaming this woman for a state of affairs that, I have reason to suspect, was produced by the kind of therapy that Polly keeps telling people to undertake. Who else would teach you that level of self-blaming than a therapist. Because if you do not blame yourself you will have to blame your therapist.

True enough, the letter write does not say how much therapy she has undergone, but how can anyone make this much of a mess of her life without having suffered the ministrations of a licensed, credentialed professional?

Anyway, even though Polly says the same thing no matter what the problem is—in that she is probably just like many therapists—we should glance at the letter that incited her:

I am a 35-year-old woman with an ostensibly good life. I am conventionally attractive, well educated, from a racial background that does not get excessively discriminated against in my country, and from enough money that I have never known true deprivation. I have a well-paying job with benefits in a glamorous, creative industry that I worked my ass off to get after suddenly pivoting away from a more stable and lucrative career path in my mid-20s. I live with my boyfriend, a wickedly smart and enormously kind man who shares the same twisted sense of humor as mine and thinks the world of me.

I’ve found the courage and strength to break off toxic relationships that were not improving despite all my best efforts; chiefly, those with my mother and my ex-husband. I have done so, so much work to understand myself better and break unhealthy mind-sets and habits. I am finally at a place in my life where I can do almost anything I want to do, and yet …

I am unhappy. I do not feel the sense of grace and gratitude I want to. Instead, I am a dissatisfied ball of longing and anger, and then when the anger curdles, great sadness. I am creatively unfulfilled with the glamorous job and have had enough similar jobs to know that a job change may not really solve anything but simply be a trade of one set of problems for another set that is equally bad or worse. I think I want to have my own business but don’t know what kind of business, and after watching a lot of entrepreneurs around me, I worry that having a business will just make my life harder in a way I will come to regret. As I type this, my boyfriend is passed out on the couch after going to lunch with a friend who often encourages him to drink to inebriation and, despite promising me he would not, drank himself silly, drove home under the influence, and will likely not be in any condition to go with me to the concert I’ve been looking forward to all week later tonight. We almost never have sex, and he once told me that he doesn’t think I know how to love. When he is not drinking, which is the majority of the time, he is everything I want in a future partner. I badly want this relationship to work out, but feel like I am somehow fucking it up without knowing how. Most of my friends are marrying and having children and don’t have space for me in their lives much anymore. This makes me sad, but I feel like all I can do is accept it as an inevitability. And even though I know ending communication with my mother was the right thing for me, I grieve the deep family ties I will never have.

When the letter writer talks about how much work she has done to achieve the misery she is now feeling, she must be talking about therapy. When she says that she can do whatever she wants, she is echoing another of the great mantras of therapy. In truth, therapy has made a mess of her life. Therapy has helped her to get out of a marriage and to cease contact with her mother. This latter, even Polly agrees, is a bad idea. It is not a sign of courage, but a sign of cowardice. And when the letter writer blames herself for everything that is going wrong, that too is a sign that she has overdosed on therapy.

We do not know how bad the husband was and how abusive the relationships was, but we do know that her current boyfriend is a loser... who does not seem to work. Since she never mentions what he does for a living, the chances are good that he drinks all the time and spends his days passed out on the couch. Not what you would call perfect husband material.

Beyond the fact that she has chosen a drunk for a boyfriend and never has sex with him, the questions that loom over this letter--and that Polly never addresses-- concern marriage and family. It’s nice to know that her friends are all settling down and starting their families. But, beyond the fact that said boyfriend is not someone that anyone would want to marry, why are the marriage/family questions not being addressed?

In truth, this letter writer feels her own feelings so deeply that she does not see what is happening in her life. She does not even address the questions that would, for a normal 35 year old, be front and center. Worse yet, advice columnist Polly does not either.

Etiquette, New York Times Version

Despite appearances, some advice columnists offer good, solid, sensible advice. In the interest of positive thinking, and before I write a post about one of the columnists from New York Magazine, I will offer a few words about Philip Galanes who writes the etiquette column at the New York Times.

Galanes is consistently thoughtful… which is the most you have a right to expect from a columnist. In yesterday’s column he answered four letters. Take a look, and think to yourself whether you agree with his answers.

First letter:

I recently switched jobs and have been training to use a complicated new computer system. The young woman helping me is terrific: kind, innovative and bright. While training, I learned that she was a teen mom and lifted herself from difficult circumstances. She is interviewing very soon for a better position in the company. But I’ve noticed that her grammar is occasionally poor, and I fear it may hold her back. Could I say something to her? She’s never asked for my advice, but we’ve talked about our desire for advancement.

First response, abbreviated:

Assuming “interviewing very soon” means … well, very soon, I picture an interaction like so: “Denise, you’re terrific, but your grammar stinks. Now, get into that interview room and knock ’em dead!” You have just enough time to destabilize her, but not enough to teach her subject-verb agreement. Let’s try a different tack.

Write to the human-resources department, or whomever your co-worker is interviewing with, and praise her to the heavens. If she’s the Stephen Sondheim of computer trainers, let the gods of advancement know. Be specific about her ingenuity and underscore her drive to grow. (But leave out the “teen mom” business; she probably told you that in friendly confidence.)

Sounds good to me… right on the money. By the way, some people do fail to get jobs because of their bad grammar. One imagines the schools do not teach grammar any more… so we know who to blame. If they did their first lesson should be to explain that if you use the common locution “I seen” you sound illiterate.

Second letter:

I am a gay guy who rarely uses hookup apps. So I was pretty shocked when my sister’s boyfriend turned up at my place via Scruff. Our faces are sort of hidden in our profiles. He begged me not to tell my sister. I want to be straight with her, but I’d hate to “out” someone. What do you think?

Second response:

One word for you, Jay: sister! Of course you’re going to tell her. Sharing the same womb trumps the shaded complexity of outing. And you are not going to date this guy, either …

Of course means of course. Points to Galanes. If you imagined for an instant that he should keep the secret, you get three demerits.

Third letter:

I am an avid gardener and keep our small yard in top shape. I find it soothing after my busy weeks as a high school teacher and dad to two young girls. Our neighbor knocked on our door and asked me not to use the leaf blower on Sundays. He said it is his only day to rest and doesn’t want to hear my “noise pollution.” I was taken aback but told him I would think about it. Outrageous, right?

Third response:

Before we get to your loathsome leaf blower, let me pay you a sincere compliment: If more people responded as you did (“Let me think about it”) when they felt aggravated by the demands of others, civility would increase exponentially. Just take a beat and respond later when you’re cooler headed. Well done, Robert!

Again, a good piece of advice. Think before you abandon impulse control. Spontaneity is overrated. I know nothing about the noise levels of leaf blowers, but I heartily endorse the Galanes view: namely, that we will enhance societal civility if we pause before saying something stupid. At a time when everyone thinks that there is some special virtue in saying No, the truth remains that the civil response is: Let me think about it.

Fourth letter:

My 30-year-old son is vegan. My wife (his stepmother) tries to accommodate him at family meals. But he often complains to me privately that her vegan dishes are bland. And my wife makes not-so-subtle swipes at the table about the extra work. This week, my son emailed me to ask if it would offend my wife if he brought some dishes to Thanksgiving. He added that her vegan offerings were limited last year. My wife saw the email and flipped her tofu. How should I handle this?

Fourth response:

Something tells me — O.K., it’s the nasty two-way sniping — that food is not the culprit here. Tell your son, privately, that he should be a more gracious guest. More important, tell him that your wife reads your emails. (He has an expectation of privacy when writing to you directly.) Next, inform your wife that passive-aggressive zingers about slaving in the kitchen do not flatter any host. Then arrange for your son to bring a few vegan options to supplement your wife’s undoubtedly delicious meal. 

Precisely. We will ignore the fact that a thirty-year old male should not be respected for being a whiny vegan. And obviously, if the young whiner wants to eat his own special “tempeh tacos” as Galanes calls them, he can do as he pleases. Of course, his failure to partake of the feast on the same terms as everyone else makes him look like an outsider. In some cases it makes him look like he is sitting in judgment over everyone else's carnivorous impulses. Be that as it may, he has no right to complain about the food on offer.

Anyway, as I see it, that’s four-for-four for Galanes. Kudos for a job well done.

Thursday, November 23, 2017

Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest

Today is Thankgiving. Allow me to wish you a wonderful feast.

And, why not also feast on some examples of the profound stupidity that continues to infect our politically correct cultural ecosphere. America is being dumbed down… it’s going from dumb to dumber to dumbest.

For your delectation George Will has collected some prime examples of profound stupidity… the kind that seems to be endemic.

You should read all of Will's column. For the same of economy, I have selected a few choice morsels:

Washington’s subway banned a civil liberties group’s ad consisting entirely of the text of the First Amendment, which ostensibly violated the rule against ads “intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions.”

And,

California now can jail certain caregivers who “willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns.” A Massachusetts librarian rejected a donation of Dr. Seuss books because they are “steeped in racist propaganda,” and the New Yorker discovered that “Thomas the Tank Engine” is “authoritarian.” Always alert about planetary crises, the New Yorker also reported: “The world is running out of sand.”

And also,

In toney and oh-so-progressive Malibu, the City Council voted to become a sanctuary city. The councilwoman who made the motion for protecting illegal immigrants said: “Our city depends on a Hispanic population to support our comfortable lifestyle.” In more-progressive-than-thou Oregon, where you can get state-subsidized gender reassignment surgery at age 15 without parental permission, the Legislature made 21 the age at which adults can buy cigarettes.

Also:

A year after a NASA climatologist (from the “settled” science of climate) said California was “in a drought forever,” torrential rains threatened to break dams.

Not to be outdone, America’s finest universities weigh in with their own absurdities:

The University of Arizona guide instructed instructors to encourage students to say “ouch” when something said in class hurts their feelings. Clemson University’s diversity training washed brains with this idea: Expecting punctuality might be insensitive because in some cultures, time is considered “fluid.” The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that student snowflakes are not the only victims of academic suffering. It seems that after the nine-month school year, professors endure isolation, solitude and depression during their three-month vacations.

The following missed the cut for Will’s column, but it is worth noting. In a stern rebuke to Naomi Wolf millennial women are now spending more and more money on cosmetics. And  yet, note the way the New York Times reports the story:

Young shoppers like Ms. Roark are the driving force behind a boom in the cosmetics industry. Always camera ready, they are buying and using almost 25 percent more cosmetics than they did just two years ago and significantly more than baby boomers, according to the research firm NPD. And millennials who identify themselves as “makeup enthusiasts,” NPD found, are using six products each day.

Did you notice that the punctilious New York Times, gender sensitive to a fault, refuses to identify those who purchase cosmetics as women? They are shoppers… as though men and women in roughly equal proportions hang out in the aisles of Sephora.

And finally, just in case you thought that America was alone in these forms of postcultural stupidity, we read this from Great Britain. A woman wants schools to spare first graders from the appalling message promoted by Sleeping Beauty. The Daily Mail reports:

Sarah Hall, from Northumberland Park, North Shields, claimed the fairytale promotes an 'inappropriate sexual' message to young children. 

She argued the story is irresponsible because it teaches children it is acceptable to kiss women while they are asleep.

The mother of two said: 'I think it's a specific issue in the Sleeping Beauty story about sexual behaviour and consent.

'It's about saying is this still relevant, is it appropriate?'

Ms Hall is worried about what message the tale, which features a Prince waking up a Princess by kissing her, sends to impressionable youngsters.

Better for Sleeping Beauty never to wake up, don’t you think?

Enjoy the turkey, but go easy on the tryptophan.

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Womanspreading Gone Wild

In regard to my earlier post on womanspreading, the Daily Mail has scoured Instagram to reveal some of the recent and highly fashionable examples of womanspreading. Perhaps you want to have the evidence before forming a judgment. Surely, you will agree that these women are adopting power poses. Power to the people!!

As the old saying goes: What would we do without the Daily Mail.

Bella Hadid is among the celebrities who have been womanspreading on Instagram

Emily Ratajkowski recently adopted the powerful stance in one of her recent snaps

Other Instagram users have also been seen womanspreading in their snaps 

Other social media users have been poking fun at the manspreading trend on public transport

Balance of Powers Diplomacy in the Middle East

It is commonly accepted that American presidents have alternately conducted foreign policy either by promoting democracy or by practicing balance of powers diplomacy. The name Woodrow Wilson is most often associated with the former. Henry Kissinger is the best-known practitioner of the latter.

Today, David Goldman suggests that we can best understand what is happening in the Middle East by seeing it as a rebalancing of Sunni and Shia powers. He suggests that George W. Bush’s Wilsonian policies destroyed the balance. Prior to the Iraq War Saddam Hussein’s Sunni government had balanced Iranian hegemonic ambitions. After Bush overthrew Saddam and sponsored democratic elections, Iraq became a Shia state, thus upsetting the Sunni-Shia balance. 

At a time when many commentators are gnashing their teeth over the recent events in Saudi Arabia, a little rational thought cannot hurt.

Goldman believes that we can best see the rise of the Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman within this context:

The ascent of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman – with the assistance of the United States and the approval of China – occurs in the context of an effort to restore the regional balance of power, following 15 years of instability due to America’s sponsorship of Shi’ite rule in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein’s Sunni government balanced Shi’ite Iran. When the George W. Bush administration overthrew him and imposed majority, that is, sectarian Shi’ite rule in Iraq, the disenfranchised Sunni minority supported non-state actors, namely al-Qaeda and its offshoot ISIS. The regional power balance shifted drastically in favor of Iran, and the Obama administration’s jerry-rigged nuclear deal with the Iran gave it additional power….

Russia, to be sure, wants to restore its status as a world power; the Saudi royal family supports an expansionist brand of Salafist Islam; the Turks imagine themselves the founders of a new caliphate; and Iran wants to establish Shi’ite hegemony. All of these attitudes are relevant, to be sure, but America’s willful destruction of the Sunni-Shi’ite balance of power in the region drew all of these players into a permanent regional war. Whatever the ambitions and illusions of regional players, America’s strategic bumbling in Iraq compelled them to act as they did out of raison d’etat.

Now, after two presidents tilted toward the Shia, unintentionally and intentionally, the current administration is trying to empower Saudi Arabia. In that it is not alone:

After tipping the balance of power towards the Shi’ites, the United States now wants to restore the balance of power by reinforcing Saudi Arabia. So do Moscow and Beijing. If Prince Mohammed bin Salman didn’t exist, Washington would have to invent him. Saudi backing for “non-state actors,” namely terrorists, came in response to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the subsequent Sunni insurgencies in Iraq and Syria, but the world’s sufferance for such support had reached a limit. Just as important, the kingdom would run out of money without a drastic reform. As I wrote two years ago, the kingdom’s vast subsidies for an idle population would drain the its treasury within five years. The number of pigs at the trough had to be reduced to keep the kingdom solvent, and that was a primary motivation for the culling of the royals.

As the old saying goes: Follow the money.Thus, Goldman examines the the balance sheet, the Saudi kingdom’s ability to continue to subsidize thousands of idle princes. 

Why did Mohammed bin Salman launch his crackdown against powerful Saudi princes? Apparently, he wanted to bring money back into the kingdom, and to disempower his potential rivals by reducing their bank accounts. Currently, the princes who are sleeping on the floor of the Ritz Carlton ballroom are negotiating their release… or better, trying to buy it it. Goldman notes a fact that I had not seen: that MBS was supported by the United States Treasury Department.

Goldman explains:

His seizure of power earlier this month began by freezing the accounts of prospective adversaries. On Oct. 26, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced the formation of a Terrorist Financing Targeting Center in Riyadh. That is an extension of the Treasury’s 700-person Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Department. The Treasury office has a close relationship with CIA. Its Undersecretary during the second Obama Administration, David S. Cohen, moved from Treasury to become Deputy Director of CIA. People familiar with the Treasury operation report that the US Treasury provided the Crown Prince with “technical assistance” in his efforts to seize royal family funds, namely the location of all their accounts. The kingdom is now in negotiations with various royals as well as their bankers over these accounts, reportedly offering some of the princes now imprisoned in Riyadh’s Ritz Carlton Hotel their freedom in return for a large part of their fortunes. It has also asked banks to turn over accounts to the kingdom. That is a delicate negotiation, because the banks do not want to frighten away high net worth clients by making it easy for the Saudi authorities to expropriate funds.

Saudi Arabia is not merely forging an anti-terrorism alliance with the United States. It has also worked to improve its relations with China and Russia:

… as M.K. Bhadrakumar wrote in Asia Times Nov. 18, Saudi Arabia went out of its way to reaffirm its friendship with China. China’s commentary “specifically praised the Saudi leadership on two counts. First, it upheld the authenticity of MbS’ desire to shift toward moderate Islam – ‘Saudi wants to be less bound by religion… Although Saudi strengthens its soft power by exporting Wahhabism, it leads to the spread of extremism, seriously damaging Saudi’s international image. Hence Riyadh wants to change’,” Bhadrakumar observed.

We have reported the diplomatic initiatives directed by Saudi Arabia toward Israel and vice versa. Clearly, it is one of the more important strategic realignments in the region. And it has been supported the Saudi grand mufti.

Goldman writes:

…  MbS has opened relations with Israel. For Saudi Salafists, this is not as odd as it seems. As Burnahettin Duran wrote Nov. 19 in Turkey’s Daily Sabah, “MbS laid the groundwork for Riyadh’s cooperation with Israel, which was recently endorsed by the Saudi grand mufti, who said that it was not permissible to fight against Israel, identified Hamas as a terrorist organization and issued a fatwa to declare that cooperating with the Israeli military against Hamas was permissible. To be clear, it should not come as a huge surprise to anybody that Salafism, an apolitical movement that promotes obedience to rulers under any circumstances, would endorse fighting with Israel. The same people could, with equal ease, legitimize a type of moderate Islam flavored secular Arab nationalism.”

As opposed to many squeamish observers, Goldman downplays the chance of war with Iran:

Israel, to be sure, will not risk its own people to do Saudi Arabia’s dirty work, but the skill and experience of the Jewish state could help the kingdom enormously in the event of war with Iran. That is very unlikely. Iran has no air force, and its Russian air defense cannot defend soft targets such as electric generating plants. With a vast arsenal of highly accurate Chinese-built medium-range missiles and a very large air force, Saudi Arabia could destroy the Iranian economy in a few days of war.

Goldman predicts that Russia and especially China will attempt to tamp down Iranian ambitions by having them participate in Xi Jinping’s rather ambitions One Belt, One Road project. He looks at this with guarded optimism:

China and Russia will try to persuade Iran to abandon its grandiose plans to repopulate parts of Syria with Shi’ite settlers, and concentrate on restoring its property through participation in the One Belt, One Road infrastructure project. Whether Iran will agree to do so is unclear, but the Chinese carrot is balanced by the Saudi (and Israeli) stick. If Iran attempts to emplace a permanent military presence in Syria it will have to fight Israel, and I do not think Iran wants to take that risk just now.

In the best case, a new balance of power will emerge in the Middle East, freezing out the Sunni non-state actors as well as Iran’s marauding Revolutionary Guard Corps, and allowing the countries of the region to attend to their economic future.

Womanspreading: It's a Trend!

Women across America are rising up against male sexual predators. They are calling out harassers and reasserting their dignity.

As Martha Stewart was wont to remark: It’s a good thing.

And now, to respond to the constant feminist complaints about manspreading, some young women-- fashion models, no less-- have decided that what’s good for men is good for women. They have taken up the practice of womanspreading. It’s an Instagram trend.

Apparently, it makes them feel empowered… just as so many women felt empowered by marching in the streets wearing what they called pussyhats. That will surely cause everyone to respect them for their minds!

The New York Post has the story, via The Sun:

Womanspreading is the latest trend taking Instagram by storm and is likely to be filling your feed in 2018.

The “power stance” pose sees women sitting with their legs spread open in front of the camera — fully clothed we hasten to add.

Models like Bella Hadid and Kaia Gerber are leading the way with the wide leg position.

The pose is designed to empower women, as it bucks the tradition of sitting poised with your knees together.

The stance is usually considered by many to be “unladylike” but these stars are unfazed.

The writer could not resist pointing out that this “power pose” is not really a power pose. It’s a bluff. Let’s hope that no one calls them on it. Since the writer feels constrained to point out that this “power pose” requires that women be clothed—actually, wearing pants would be more appropriate—the implication is that it is not quite as empowering as they imagine.

One is shocked but not surprised to see that young women really believe that spreading their legs suggestively will make them more powerful. It does not. It makes them more vulnerable. The notion that gestures mean whatever you want them to mean is one of the grand illusions of our time.

True enough, the knees-together pose was more ladylike, but, what was wrong with being more ladylike? Were women more likely to be harassed when they were acting more ladylike or when they are sitting at a meeting or on the subway with their legs spread?

A thought for today….

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Germany Needs Knife Control

Apparently, Germany has guns under control. It is fifteenth in the world in per capita gun ownership. We in America are No. 1. And  yet, the relative paucity of guns does not prevent Germans from committing violent crimes. Its immigrant population is especially inclined to criminal activity, but apparently they most prefer knives, to cut and to stab people. It's more personal that way.

I would humbly suggest that Germany institute a Knife Control program. They would not take away all knives, only the sharp ones, the ones that can do serious damage. Now, that would solve the problem.

Soeren Kern of the Gatestone Institute has been following the story. He has scoured the German press and German government reports, to show how that nation has descended into an orgy of butchery. Ask yourself this: when we have knife control should butchers receive a dispensation or should we confiscate their sharpest knives?

Kern writes:

In recent months, people armed with knives, axes and machetes have brought devastation to all of Germany's 16 federal states. Knives have been used not only not only to carry out jihadist attacks, but also to commit homicides, robberies, home invasions, sexual assaults, honor killings and many other types of violent crime.

Knife-related crimes have occurred in amusement parks, bicycle trails, hotels, parks, public squares, public transportation, restaurants, schools, supermarkets and train stations. Many Germans have the sense that danger lurks everywhere; public safety, nowhere.
How bad is it? Glad you asked:

A search of German police blotters, however, indicates that 2017 is on track to become a record year for stabbings and knife crimes: Police reported more than 3,500 knife-related crimes between January and October 2017, compared to around 4,000 reported crimes during all of 2016 - and only 300 in 2007. Overall, during the past ten years, knife-related crimes in Germany have increased by more than 1,200%.

The media in Germany do not report most knife-related violence. Crimes that are reported are often dismissed as "isolated incidents," unrelated to mass immigration. Moreover, many crime reports, including those in police blotters, omit any reference at all to the nationalities of the perpetrators and victims — ostensibly to avoid inflaming anti-immigration sentiments.

We are encouraged to read that the government and the media prefers not to report the stories, especially those committed by refugees. If reality displeases you, ignore it.

Of course, most of it is taking place in immigrant communities. I trust you are not overly shocked:

The epicenter of knife-related violence in Germany is Berlin, where some areas are now so dangerous that they have effectively become no-go zones. In Neuk├Âlln and other neighborhoods with large immigrant communities, stabbings have become daily features of life. Migrants were responsible for at least 45% of the crimes committed in the German capital in 2016, according to the Berliner Morgenpost….

The northern cities of Bremen and Bremerhaven are also hotbeds of knife violence. In 2016, at least 469 people — more than one a day — were stabbed in Bremen, according to official documents obtained by the newspaper Bild. More than a dozen people in Bremen died of their stab wounds. Another 165 knife attacks were registered in nearby Bremerhaven, a 75% increase since 2014. Migrants, according to Bild, were found responsible for most of the violence.

The list of knife attacks seems interminable… Read it and join the Knife Control campaign!