The observation being that young males make up a large
portion of the refugees leaving the Levant for Europe ,
the question was asked: why are they not entire families? The basis for the
question was that these people should be fleeing a danger that's threatening
not only young males but entire families.
That line of questioning was formulated by English speaking
Jewish pundits like those populating the North American continent. Their
motivation came to light when they expanded on the reasoning they used to
connect mysterious dots they saw on a landscape that no one recognized.
In turn, the work of the pundits led them to construct
fantastic theories that were in reality, discarded ideas motivated by old prejudices.
And their effect has been to lead directly to preconceived conclusions. At the
same time, however, the authorities in the countries that received the refugees
were gathering the kind of information that gave an accurate picture of what
motivated the refugees to leave Syria
and seek asylum in Europe .
The receiving countries disclosed to the world that when
faced with a looming danger, the young Syrian males had the choice of taking up
arms to fight whatever was approaching, or fleeing Syria to go search for a place
where they can start a new life. The intent was to settle there first, and then
call on the family to join them.
Taking up arms was certain to end in the death of many,
whereas fleeing may have been fraught with danger but was offering a chance at
success. Some of the young males opted for the adventure of taking up arms, and
went to fight at the front. The others opted for the preservation of life, and
went looking for a new beginning.
In response to the disclosures made by the receiving countries,
the North American Jewish pundits whose faces represent the quintessential look
of horror, reconnected the old mysterious dots and came up with a new theory that
turned out to be more fantastic than phantasm itself. One of those pundits is
Michael Rubin, the chief gatekeeper at the house of horror. He wrote: “Social
Welfare Is Killing Refugees,” an article that was published on March 7, 2016 in
National Review Online.
He says that “the Syrian refugees … take enormous risks to
take refuge in Europe [and] face tragedy in the Aegean Sea, or occupying tent
camps along the various European borders aren't actually fleeing war and
violence … but because of Europe 's social
safety net.” He further explains that “the refugees and migrants seek out Europe because of its welfare,” this being a place where
“the refugees can get an apartment, food, and health care without having to
work”.
So there, you have it, folks. You got it directly from the
horse's mouth. He says that the able-bodied young males of Syria are taking
advantage of the war that's destroying their country, to leave behind their
parents, sisters and younger brothers – not to go find a safe place for them in
Europe – but to go live there alone, and receive welfare without having to
work. And that, my friend, is what would compel any well adjusted person to ask
the question: Who does this Rubin believe the Syrians are? Jewish pundits or
something?
In any case, the author ventures to tell how and why he
reached that sort of conclusion. First, he says “in both the United States and Europe ,
the refugee flow is discussed in a humanitarian framework.” Second, he says
“activist Manuella Appiah argued that international law requires the West to
embrace Syrian refugees.” Third, he says “Pope Francis sought to rationalize
the Arab influx into Europe ,” Fourth, he says
“policymakers, diplomats, and elite journalists preach that the West has a
responsibility to shelter refugees”.
With all these people – who clearly were born to be on the
wrong side of history – saying what they said; he, Michael Rubin, could not
escape the conclusion that to be suspicious of the Syrian young males will put
him on the right side of history. And so he decided to be suspicious, and to go
from there articulating that point of view.