“Israel Belongs To The White Man”

At least according to Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, who is hilariously a Sephardi Jew, i.e. closer to Arabs than Europeans.

Well, all countries have a right to sovereignty over their own borders, and stemming the inflow of illegal African immigrants is perfectly justifiable in Israel’s case. To this end they are ramping up legal sanctions against them.

However, what’s striking is how little flak Yishai got for his White Nationalist-like outburst. When a Russian Federal Migration Services spokesman said immigration was putting the “future of white race under threat” in a BBC interview, he was promptly fired (which was, BTW, the correct thing to do). However, the incident was plastered all over the Western media. But in Israel’s case, in which an actual Minister was involved, the incident was only mentioned on Haaretz and a few blogs.

And in general, Israel gets away with a lot of things that would draw huge opprobrium if done by any other country. E.g., you can be convicted of rape for falsely claiming to be a Jew in a seduction. It imprisons several journalists (unlike, say, Russia) but organizations like Freedom House consider it to be perfectly democratic. Palestinians in the West Bank arguably have it worse than South African blacks under apartheid. At least the latter were left to themselves (“apart”) whereas Israeli right-wing settlers gobble up the best land and sources of water in Palestine.

Of course, begrudging Israel for this is stupid. As is blaming it on an imaginary Zionist conspiracy, as the guys at Stormfront would (for a start, Jews in the US and Israel are very, very different). No, it just speaks to the importance of having a powerful lobby in Washington DC.


  1. “Of course, begrudging Israel for this is stupid. As is blaming it on an imaginary Zionist conspiracy, as the guys at Stormfront would (for a start, Jews in the US and Israel are very, very different). No, it just speaks to the importance of having a powerful lobby in Washington DC.”

    Actually I think Jews in North America are the most militant (like the Irish communities support for the IRA and Ukrainian’s in Canada and US) than Jews in Israel with a few notable exceptions despite promoting and supporting left wing causes are the ones through super PACS, media and government influence (the Neocons being the best example) are pushing a hard line pro-Israel/anti-Iran policy in the Mid East.

    The often made remark and criticism is the Jewish community, political activists, politicians and media do not practice what they preach and support radical political, social and ethnic movements for there own strategic benefit against the interest of their host nations like an open immigration policy, support for Islamic separatist movements that ethnically cleanse there non-Muslim inhabitants, multi-cultural societies and denial of the Armenian genocide in US congress working with Turkish lobbyists while supporting Israel a racially segregated ethno-state.

    Here is Tom Lantos promising to lobby on Kosovo Albanians behalf in 1990.

    • I wonder what it is about the United States (and North America generally) that leads to the diaspora of various groups being so…..militant/hostile/nationalist/out-of-sync. I know of similar occurrences happening the the diaspora of a number of Third World countries, wherein these [place nationality here]-Americans seem to think they know what is better for their country of origin (which they only visit and sometimes haven’t been to in years) over the people who actually live in said countries. It strikes me as odd that so many would want to seem to have a major say in the running of the affairs of countries they don’t live in, don’t pay taxes to and will likely never return to. After all just because you have an ancestral or personal connection to a place doesn’t mean you have (or should have) a say in how it is run. I know I have ancestry from all over the planet, but that doesn’t mean I want a vote in German elections.

      • It is not America. It is being an emigrant. And it is normal for emigrants to be out of sync with the motherland.

  2. Juniper says:

    I’m not sure why it was the ‘correct’ thing to sack Poltoranin. How is mass immigration from central Asia compatible with Russia remaining economically developed? How on earth would it be in Russia’s interest to follow the same road as Britain and France?

    • Because you don’t want a junk white supremacist ethno-nationalist state with the likes of the Stormfront idiots running around not that I am advocating Putin and Medvedevs mass immigration into Russia from Muslims in Central Asia and the Caucasus that is totally insane.

      Russia needs Eurasian integration with an energy, security and economic union otherwise a Turkic Islamic Union supported by the west, Turkey and Mid East states will come to dominate Eurasia and a threat to Russia’s own stability that will end up like Serbia.

      It is a complete myth that Britain and France are being swamped by immigrants as most of the immigration is economic from the new EU countries primarily Poland who are mostly not even permanent residents.

      • Legally they are permanent residents and i have about as much hope of them leaving as with the Turks in the 70’s.

    • anon666 says:

      Kazakhs and Uzbekhs aren’t really the most problematic ethnic groups in the world, if at all.

      • I agree – Russia is relatively lucky in that regard. That however objectively can’t be said for the Chechens, Dagestanis, etc., which happen to be IN Russia and as such there can be no legal restrictions on their movement. Fortunately, their absolute numbers are quite low however.

        • Kazakhs are not a problem that Brzezinski wrongly predicted would not join a the security alliance with Russia despite supporting Uyghur separatists in China that would have an effect on Kazakhstan as well but due to WW2 resettlement of Chechens in Kazakhstan and the US/Britain supporting the spread of Turkic Islamic jihadism like in all the Central Asian republics does pose a threat to Russia.

          There is a British oil Oligarch who is stirring up trouble from London supporting striking oil workers which unsuprisingly has also seen a spate of low level terrorist attacks.

          Uzbekistan on the other hand has the largest or one of the largest jihadist terrorist groups in the world the IMU that is a huge threat to Russia.

          Tajikistan has been quasi jihadist since the civil war and has provided support to Chechen jihadists since Ibn Khattab fought on there side in the civil war before travelling to Chechnya in 95 and becoming more radical thanks to foreign funding from Qatar and Iran.

    • as jsck said, it is a myth that Britain and France are being swamped by migrants. In the 1951 census, Indians accounted for 31,000 out of a population of 50 million. In 2001 Indians accounted for a 1 million out of a population of almost 59 million (just under 2% of the population). It would take a truly long time before Indians would be poised to become a majority. So long in fact (possibly hundreds of years if not more) that there is probably little point in even trying to speculate that far out into the future. By then who knows how the world and Britain would have changed.

      • Juniper says:

        “It is a complete myth that Britain and France are being swamped by immigrants as most of the immigration is economic from the new EU countries primarily Poland who are mostly not even permanent residents.”

        My God you two are hopelessly misinformed I LIVE in London and it has been completely drowned, never mind swamped with immigrants over the last 20 years. Your figures from the last census are meaningless, first because indians are only a minority of the non-EU immigrants arriving, (Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Somalis and other Africans and Arabs account for far more and are largely unassimilable to British culture as well as useless to our economy) second because immigration exploded after 2000. 3rd because the immigrant birth rates dwarf those of the native British. It is also a complete myth that most of the immigrants have been from new EU countries as MigrationWatchUK can confirm. In fact the Governmedia’s shifting of the focus of the immigration “debate” onto assimilable European immigration was a very convenient ploy. The next 30 40 years are going to be an absolute disaster for Britain.

        • @Juniper

          Please it is a myth that Britain is being swamped by non-European immigrants that has been peddled since after WW2 and of those non-Europeans it is never stated that they have not been given permanent citizenship and are repatriated once the current colonial war or regime we have overthrown like Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq.

          You can’t ascribe overal immigration based on communities in London as like New York it is an historical living destination for new immigrant communities.

          The second highest birth rate in Britain after native Pakistanis whose number I think is about 1 million are Poles.

          “Polish women living in the UK are more likely to have children than the British and those living in Poland.

          A better benefits system and the NHS have been given as the main reason behind families choosing to have their children here.

          The extent to which people are prepared to put down roots in the UK goes some way to dispel the myth that people come here to work say researchers.

          The study found that in England and Wales Polish women had 18,000 children in 2009 – making them second in fertility rates only to Pakistani women.”


          • Fertility rate of Polish women is mostly due to selection process. If you already have kids you are less likely to emigrate. But it does show that dreams of Poles that return are mostly dreams. Add their drinking habits and you can expect how bad the second generation will be.

            • In the article it said that it is due to a generous child support benefit system.

              Poland’s long standing ties with Britain and the Polish community in Britain is also a main factor I would assume.

              “Add their drinking habits and you can expect how bad the second generation will be.”

              Can’t be any worse than Brtain as binge drinking is part of British culture.

              • I didn’t want to compare Polish drinking habits to the British but to other emigrant groups like the Pakis

    • Because it is stunningly racist (race realism is not racism) and profoundly uncivil. I am a firm believer in the value of civility in social relations; there’s a reason that people listen to and respect Thilo Sarrazin, and not skinhead neo-Nazis. Consequently, it also reflects badly on a Russia as a country of apes.

      Finland, Australia, Singapore have sane immigration policies. Do their spokespeople go off on rants? No, they do not. They keep their cognitive elitism low-key.

      • Singapore a sane immigration policy? Only for the business world and if you consider how “democratic” Singapore is the likely reason why the current government will fall.

        There is a big difference between what is best for the country and what is best for the people. Governments should make rules what is best for the people as they are the ones who are paying the bills. Not what is best for the country.

    • Jennifer Hor says:

      According to the Federal Migratory Service in Russia, there were 7 million immigrants working in Russia in 2011 and half of these were Ukrainian. The other half were mostly from Moldova, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. These areas were part of the USSR so Russians are already familiar with Moldovans (similar to Romanians), Tajiks and Uzbeks, most of whom are unskilled. Unskilled workers usually leave families behind in their home countries and expect to return there; skilled workers and educated people may stay in Russia. So the nature of immigration into Russia may be different from the western European experience.

      Although Russia has a long history of xenophobia, my own experience meeting Russians in Sydney and from what I have read of Russia-related matters suggest that Russians are more tolerant of other peoples than the British and French. Alexander Pushkin’s grandfather (great-grandfather?) Abram Petrovich Gannibal was originally from Ethiopia or Eritrea. Many other famous Russians like Sergei Rakhmaninov, the poet Bella Akhmadulina and Marat Safin and his sister Dinara Safina had / have mixed Russian and other (often Tatar Muslim) ancestry. Poltoranin’s rant is an insult to the Russian people, many if not most of whom have mixed Slavic-Finnic-Turkic ancestry.

      In Australia, Russian settlers frequently married Aboriginal women and there has been a book published, “My Dark Brother: the story of the Illins, a Russian-Aboriginal Family” by Elena Govor. Leandro Illin, son of Nikolai Illin (an aristocrat who emigrated to Australia), married Kitty Clarke at a time (early 20th century)
      when marriages between Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginals were
      discouraged as Aborigines were expected to die out. Their descendants still live in Queensland.

      ity like

      • yalensis says:

        Dear Jennifer: The story of mixed Russian-aboriginal families in Australia sounds fascinating. Thanks for that information, I was not aware of that history, and will look to fill in my knowledge.
        My understanding of Australian aboriginals is that they are a very early human culture (not as early as they think they are, but still fairly early, dating back maybe 20,000 years?) That they are the descendants (along with Dravidians) of the early human migration out of Africa that migrated along the Indian coastline and then sailed to various islands and other lands, including Australia? In other words, they have no Neanderthal blood and are mostly pure homo sapiens? Given that, it would seem they would be highly compatible with Russians, who are a mixture of many different strains and have highly flexible DNA. Russians (both men and women) tend to marry and have children with whomever they encounter, without much cultural fuss or Angst. Russian xenophobia is wildly exagerrated. True racists (like the skinheads) are a transplanted Western phenomena.
        I think the reason Russians get a reputation as racists is because they are blunt speaking, I guess it’s a legacy of peasant culture, people can be intrusive, rude and blunt, like for example, just point to someone walking down the street minding his own business, and say, “Look at that black person, he’s SO nappy”, or “Wow, that guy is a real Jew, look at his big nose…” etc, things that are politically incorrect in more “polite” societies. But I think, despite this rudeness, deep down, among most Russians, there is a rough humanism and a sense that “people are people”, regardless of external differences.
        I am speaking in stereotypes, of course. Again, there is an actual skinhead/fascist movement in Russia, but it is small, insigificant, and a purely Western transplant.

        • Scowspi says:

          ” there is an actual skinhead/fascist movement in Russia, but it is small”

          Maybe now, but in the early years when I was there (2005-08) they were very active and violent. Certain cities (notably St. Petersburg) were notorious for violence against dark-skinned people.

          • yalensis says:

            Thanks, @scowspi, this is true. I should have added that even a numerically small group of people can cause a lot of damage in a society.

        • Jennifer Hor says:

          Dear Yalensis,

          From what I’ve heard and read, Australian aborigines arrived in Australia at least 50,000 years ago and were part of the “beachcomber” migration that went along the coasts of east Africa, Yemen, into Pakistan (the Persian Gulf being shallow at the time), then along the Indian coastline into southeast Asia and Sundaland (Sumatra, the Malayan peninsula and Borneo all joined up into one landmass) and across the sea into northern Australia. They may not necessarily be pure Homo sapiens: Melanesian people who would have migrated with Australians apparently have some Denisovan genes so don’t count Australians out of a share of those.

          Of all non-Europeans, full-blood Australian aborigines and Melanesians can have red and blond hair, usually as children.

          • yalensis says:

            Thanks, Jennifer. Human history is fascinating! Seems like those Denisovans really got around too! I read in a science magazine that the “beachcombers” during their coastline migration were probably the ones who figured out that shellfish was not only edible but also nutritious. You could live on a diet of pure shellfish. That was probably what kept them moving along, in search of more food. Then, after they invented rafts and boats, they could supplement with fish. I wonder where they slept, though. Sleeping on the bech is not very practical. They would have to build shelters far enough inland so the tide wouldn’t wash them away.

  3. Yog-Sothoth, the All in One and One in All says:

    I don’t think a comparative history of Russia would show it to have a history of xenophobia relative to other countries — in the 20th century time frame, you’re going to be comparing it to White Australia; the Jim Crow US and its attempts to limit Italians, Jews, and the Irish; and 20th-century Germany, whose track record is rather obvious in this respect. I think this is one stereotype that has been created by Westerners, who typically project onto Russia and Eastern Europe in general whatever is considered bad by them at any historical period. Sort of like how you’ll get German newspapers talking about “Eastern European anti-Semitism.”

  4. Yog-Sothoth, the All in One and One in All says:

    BTW according to Israeli friend of men, this quote is a mistranslation from Hebrew. It should be “they (Muslim immigrants) don’t think there should be white people in Israel.”