Wednesday, 17 May 2017

Israel boasts that many asylum seekers from Africa are returning to their countries of origin or going to Uganda and Rwanda, but Haaretz has discovered that the main destinations in the past year were actually other Western countries. In these states, in contrast to Israel, asylum seekers receive substantial benefits and are not under pressure from the authorities. 
In the past year almost 1,400 asylum seekers left Israel for North America and Europe – almost three times the number in the previous year. About 900 asylum seekers, about 98 percent of them Eritrean, were absorbed into Canada – more than the number taken in by Uganda and Rwanda combined. Many were single, but Canada also absorbed families and children. The United States took in around 140 asylum seekers who had been in Israel, while more than 350 went to Europe, most of them to Sweden or the Netherlands. Israel’s Population, Immigration and Border Authority, part of the Interior Ministry, provided this data in response to a Freedom of Information request from the Movement for Freedom of Information. 
Dawit Demoz, 30, from Eritrea, spent almost seven years in Israel and was a community leader before leaving for Canada last year. During his first year in Canada he began studying psychology at York University, in Toronto, while working part-time in an organic supermarket. This summer he will be a counselor at a camp for at-risk youth. Last week Demoz flew to Berlin to see his sister for the first time in 10 years. As an asylum seeker in Israel he was barred from leaving the country, but in Canada he obtained a laissez-passer that allows him to travel abroad to meet with relatives. 
Speaking from Toronto, Demoz describes his new life. “I feel that I’m not a refugee now,” he says in good Hebrew that already has a Canadian accent. “For six and a half years in Israel I begged to be a refugee, but here I don’t feel like a refugee, I feel like any other person. Everyone is the same here, Nobody looks at me differently or says anything wrong to me, the way people didn’t sit next to me on the train, the way people told me that they don’t rent to Eritreans. That doesn’t exist here. People speak their language freely without fear and display their culture. From the moment I landed I felt at home here.” 
...In Israel, Damuz lived in a small apartment in south Tel Aviv with other asylum seekers. In Toronto he lives with a local family. “I live in West Toronto. There’s no such thing that all the rich and white people live in one place and simple people and those without money live elsewhere. There’s nothing like south Tel Aviv. People are mixed here. There’s no government frightening the public about 'infiltrators.' So the public sees us like anyone else. Most of the public is not racist, really open and not afraid. If you’re already a refugee, Canada is the first option. No other country treats refugees like Canada.” 
Mulo Masfan, also 30 and also from Eritrea, recently left for Canada after spending over seven years in Israel. He began the immigration process about two years ago, but shortly afterward he was sent to the Holot detention facility in the Negev. After staying there for a week he left without permission and returned to Tel Aviv. Masfan says he didn’t want to spend his remaining time in Israel locked up, adding that he had committed no crime. 
In Israel he worked mainly in a Tel Aviv bar. The manager, a Canadian, helped him to move to Canada. He now lives there with his family, works in a restaurant kitchen and plans to start academic studies next year. He says that in Israel he lived in constant fear of the authorities and couldn’t plan his future. He was always afraid his permit wouldn’t be renewed or that he would be arrested. “They kept passing laws and policy against us, harsher each time. It’s still safer to remain in Israel than to go to Uganda or Rwanda, or to return to Eritrea. From the moment you arrive in Canada things start to change. Everyone you meet is very friendly, they cooperate with you, all the opportunities are open. I just have to decide what I want to do,” Masfan says.
Source

Studies show that Europeans are the least ethnocentric people in the world. Judaism is the prototypical form of ideological racism in world history*. That the least ethnocentric people in the world are continually reproached for their wicked ethnocentrism by the most ethnocentric people in history, and that they take these reproaches seriously rather than bursting out laughing or becoming angry at the hypocrisy, is a truly extraordinary thing.

*Zoroastrianism is the only possible exception I am aware of. At times it, too, incorporated elements of racial supremacism. The Jews lived under Persian rule and their own religion clearly took a strong imprint from Zoroastrianism.

9 comments:

  1. "Studies show that Europeans are the least ethnocentric people in the world."

    Can you please show me the link? I don't have that data.

    Also thats maybe because the study was a recent study, and so it studied a western population brainwashed by jews. Because in the past, race mixing and non-white immigration were largely not allowed in white/western countries, they were way more ethnocentric than today.

    I would say that if not for jewish brainwashing white people would be a lot more ethnocentric, just like they were in the past.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The word "Studies" links to the paper. There was also a discussion of it on Vdare here.

      Delete
    2. Ok, thanks. If someone wants to read the full paper you can download it from here.

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303808334_Demographic_economic_and_genetic_factors_related_to_national_differences_in_ethnocentric_attitudes

      Still, the fact remains that whites were more ethnocentric in the past (there was greater resistance to race mixing and to non-white immigration or to foreign religions), so i would say that some of this is caused by jewish brainwashing of western populations. It could be also partly caused by more feminisation as well, as white countries in the past were not as feminised as today. I have a xenophobia map of Europe and it correlates pretty well with the level of feminisation of society, although the correlation is not perfect. But generally speaking, southern and eastern european countries are more xenophobic.

      http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/03/this-map-shows-the-most-racist-countries-in-europe-and-how-britain-ranks-6612608/

      Delete
    3. How do you measure the feminisation of a society?

      Delete
    4. I would say the number of women in government and parliament, in the labour force, the presence of robust feminist movement, the level of the gender pay gap, etc. I see it as the level of total influence of women in society. Especially in politics and the economic sphere, as well as the ideological sphere. There are indices that measure that. Also it appears that the welfare state has some connection with the level of female influence in society, for example it was found that suffrage led to immediate rise in gov spending and taxes. The welfare state then serves as a magnet for immigrants, minorities and low iq people.

      Southern and eastern european countries are generally less feminised than the rest of western countries, and that is generally correlated (not perfectly though) with the level of female influence in society. That correlation exists on the world stage as well, although again it is not perfect.

      Delete
    5. "Southern and eastern european countries are generally less feminised than the rest of western countries, and that is generally correlated (not perfectly though) with the level of female influence in society."

      read

      "Southern and eastern european countries are generally less feminised than the rest of western countries, and that is generally correlated (not perfectly though) with the level of xenophobia in society."

      Delete
    6. Also have a look at this: the level of acceptance of interracial marriage has increased with time, in other words whites were way more xenophobic in the 50s

      http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/zjvs_n5c6kkeionkwnt3ea.png

      So what changed? First jewish brainwashing caused the population to become more tolerant. And second, as female influence increased compared to the 50s, and since women are more tolerant than men, as a result society became more tolerant of foreigners than the old society from the 50s.

      Delete
  2. To Passer by
    Sorry. I don't know an intelligent woman to eager to spend an egg on a low IQ.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, on the other hand, i know. White women are the majority of whites who mix with blacks and the majority of those who convert to Islam, often due to muslim boyfriends.

      But thats not what i wanted to say. It appears that in feminised societies there is bias towards dysgenics, as the welfare system that is heavily promoted and supported by women leads to the spread of low IQ people - as they are subsidized by the welfare state. They are not always non-white - for example currently low IQ white women have higher birth rate than high IQ white women. White single mothers (those who are subsidized by the state) also have lower IQ on average than married white women.

      Delete