Footer Pages

The World’s Most Racist Nations

The World’s Most Racist Nations

by Alcibiades Blitzerian

According to a recent Washington Post report, India and Jordan are the most racist nations on the planet with more than 40% of the population not wanting another race for their neighbor. Following close behind were other Middle Eastern nations such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and then South East Asian nations such as Vietnam, Indonesia, and South Korea. Unfortunately, the creators of the survey, which the Washington Post report was based on, purposefully left out the most racist nation on the planet: Israel. Although much of the Middle East is included in this survey, Israel is ominously omitted, even though information on Israeli racism is readily available. The association for Civil Rights in Israel(ACRI) took a poll in 2007 which found that 66% of Israeli teens believe Arabs are less intelligent, uncultured, and violent. Fifty percent of the Israelis taking the poll said they would not share an apartment with an Arab, befriend an Arab or let their kids befriend Arabs, or even let Arabs into their homes.

A poll taken by the ACRI in 2008 found that these trends were increasing. Another poll taken in 2007, by the Center Against Racism found that 75% of Israeli Jews did not approve of Jews living in the same apartment buildings as Arabs, and that more than 50% of Jews would not have an Arab boss and thought that marrying an Arab was tantamount to national treason. Fifty percent of Israelis also thought Arabs should not be allowed in the same entertainment sites and 40% wanted Arab’s voting rights rescinded. In 2012, a majority of Israelis said they would support apartheid.

Racism in Israel is not just limited to anti-Arab bias unfortunately, Israeli racism against blacks has actually surpassed anti-Arabism. The racism in Israel has become so severe that Yuval Diskin, the former head of the Israeli Security Agency (Shin Bet), recently admitted that Israel has become “more and more racist.”

A full report on Israeli racism can be found here:

These statistics clearly show that Israel has more than double the level of racism of some of its Middle Eastern neighbors, and about 50 times the level of racism of the Western nations that is supposedly “shares values” with. Since the West, which many people closely associate Israel with, has the lowest levels of racism, the Washington Post report makes it appear as if unbiased Israel is surrounded by racist neighbors. The reality is that Israeli racism far surpasses that of its neighbors and the rest of the world. America should re-consider its financial/political support of the most racist nation on the planet.

•                    •                    •                    •

In another article Blitzerian examines some of the underpinnings of Jewish racism, as manifested in Israel: In 2010, the leader of the Sephardic community and founder of the Shas party, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, stated that the sole purpose of non-Jews was to serve Jews. He also said in a television interview that “gentiles need to die…goyim have no place in this world.” In the same year, 50 state-paid rabbis signed a letter instructing Jews not to sell or rent houses to Arabs. The letter was then endorsed by another 250 Jewish religious figures. Many of the top Israeli Rabbis issued a religious edict saying, “a thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jew’s fingernail.” The edict went on to say that captured Arab prisoners of war could be used for medical experiments. The religious leaders also decreed that Jewish law forbids renting homes to Arabs or employing them. They based these edicts and proclamations on their holy book, the Talmud, which they claim allows Jews to cheat gentiles and even claims that it is not a sin for a Jew to kill a gentile indirectly. This may explain why Israel had no qualms about firing white phosphorous rockets into Palestinian villages in response to minor terrorist attacks. White phosphorous weapons are internationally illegal because they burn the victims alive in the most grotesque manner possible. When a nation does not view a particular race as human, it is far easier to commit war crimes against them. ”


Share Button

3 Responses to The World’s Most Racist Nations

  1. Markus Wolfe December 21, 2013 at 8:05 pm #

    Interesting article. Before I got to the part stating it, that’s what I was thinking, the deliberate omission of Israel from the list. What is also interesting is that some of the countries listed there provide significant numbers of immigrants to western countries. How do you reconcile these two things? War caused some immigration. The study is obviously flawed for not including Israel. Is it flawed for including some countries that don’t belong there? Personally, I’ve usually found Indians to be very friendly on a personal level.

    I wonder how the Washington Post defines racism? If England, France, Germany and other European countries announced they were going to drastically reduce or forbid immigration from non-European countries, would this be considered racist? From what I’ve heard, parts of London look like Asia or Africa and I think the same can be said of parts of France and Germany too. I believe the trend in some of these countries will leave the native European population being outnumbered by non-whites within fifty years. Is it racist if an Englishman, Frenchman or German does not want this and opposes future immigration?

    I think it’s complicated. If someone doesn’t want someone from a different ethnicity as a neighbor, that is probably racist, although the feelings might be for economic reasons (reducing the value of someone’s property). If someone doesn’t want a significant number of foreigners coming to their country, I don’t consider that racist.

    I wonder what Jordan is on the list for? Didn’t they take in all the Palestinians the Jews pushed out?

  2. Ariadna Theokopoulos December 22, 2013 at 12:34 am #

    In an interview in 2010, Hervé Ryssen talked about the Jewish prescription for “multicultural” immigration: unlimited for the “nations,” forbidden in Israel:
    “The objective of the globalists is to destroy rooted,traditional cultures in order to create a uniform world. This aspiration to unity was expressed by the Hasidic philosopher Martin Buber, who does not seem to realize that he is giving us an exact definition of totalitarianism: “Everywhere,” he writes, “one will find [in Judaism] theaspiration towards unity. Towards unity within the individual. Towards unity between the members of a divided people, and between the nations. Towards the unity of man and all living things, towards the unity of God and of the world.”

    To achieve this perfect world, it is thus necessary to mix, crush, dissolve all national resistances and ethnic or religious identities. “Unity” can be created only from human powder and the residues of great civilizations, and in this enterprise of destroying traditional civilizations, immigration plays a crucial role. Here the doctrines of “human rights” are a terribly effective weapon of war. This is what grand rabbi Kaplan says: “The advent of an era that does not threaten mankind will depend largely on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. . . . Respect for this Declaration is an obligation so pressing that it is everyone’s duty to contribute to its universal and complete application.” All humanity must submit to it. This amounts to saying that “human rights” are the key to realizing the promises of Yahweh. Thus it is no accident that René Cassin, the inspirer of the 1948 declaration, was also the general secretary of the Alliance Israélite Universelle.


    “Jewish intellectuals can be liberals, Marxists, Zionists, religious believers, or atheists. But all these divergences do not at all invalidate the messianic foundation of their aspirations. And on immigration, I can assure you that they are unanimous. Here for example is what Daniel Cohn-Bendit, former leader of May 68 and assistant mayor of Frankfurt says: “In Frankfurt on the Mainz, the population ismore than 25 percent foreign, but one can say that Frankfurt would not crumble if one day it reaches a third.”

    This is perfectly in sync with the socialist Jacques Attali writingabout Germany’s aging population: “It is indeed necessary that the naturalized foreign population reaches a third of the entire population, and half of that of the cities.”
    One could, of course, encouragethe German birthrate. But Jacques Attali does not consider it, because only a multiracial society guarantees the realization of the planetarian project. For France, Attali suggests the same solution: “It will also have to pursue the means to rejuvenate its population, by accepting alarge number from abroad.”

    A November 2005 report of the World Bank also encourages Russia to open its borders and to undertake a policy of large-scale immigra-tion, which would be “one of the main conditions for stable economic growth” with an aging population. Let us note all the same that Paul Wolfowitz, the president of the World Bank, has never encouraged Arab immigration to Israel to support its aging population. Remarks of this sort can be found among virtually all Jewish intellectuals, be they Marxists like Jacques Derrida, socialists like Guy Konopnicki, or liberals like Guy Sorman or Alain Minc. Moreover, they all show an annoying tendency to treat us like morons, by telling us that immigration, for example, has not increased for 20 years or that insecurity is not related to it anyway. With a straight face, Cohn-Bendit assures that “to stop racism, it would be best to further increase the number from abroad”! Their remarks on this subject are staggeringly brazen. For instance, Guy Sorman flatly claims that the France of yesteryear, with its dialects and patois, was altogether “more multicultural than it is it today.”
    It is one example among many of this invincible brazenness, of which they are very proud, and which they call ”chutzpah.”

    The objective is to destroy the white world, and, in a more general way, all rooted societies. These intellectuals assure us that this is an inescapable development, and that consequently, there is no use opposing it. Note that in the Marxist schema, it was the classless society which was to be “inescapable.” According to Jean Daniel: “Nothing will stop the movement of impoverished populations towards an old and rich Occident. . . . This is why wisdom, reason, insists on preparing from now on to receive more and more immigrants.”
    You must understand that they seek to prohibit the very idea of defending oneself. The unanimity of cosmopolitan discourse on this subject isreally astonishing.”

    • Markus Wolfe December 22, 2013 at 5:35 pm #

      In addition to their hypocrisy with their opposition to immigration to Israel, they have proven that wherever they move, they will maintain their own culture independent of the country they live within. That’s not true of other groups that will integrate over time.

Leave a Reply