I rarely read neocon Jennifer Rubin‘s drivel but took interest in a couple of her recent articles denouncing “racists” and plugging for mass immigration for the USA.
It got me to thinking about the immigration policy of Israel. Let’s see.
– Israel supports the deportation of Africans from Israel.
– Israel supports the forced sterilization of Africans living in Israel.
– Israelis won’t even share a swimming pool with Africans.
– Israel wants to protect the wages of Israelis, and doesn’t want them driven down by mass immigration from Africa.
If Rubin cares so much about “racism,” why doesn’t she write about these “injustices”?
Of course, Rubin won’t ever denounce these sensible policies by Israel, but she’ll continue to produce op-ed after op-ed supporting mass immigration into the West and denouncing whites as being “racists.”
Why does Rubin support sound policy for Israel but mass immigration for the USA and Europe? Why does Rubin want to see the West transformed into a Third World sewer?
One can’t help but wonder that Jennifer Rubin and her ilk are the true enemies of the West.
Related:
“Primer on Immigration and Human BioDiversity”
“Who Supports Open Borders? Summary of Open-Borders Elite in USA”
Occam's Razor 
Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
Yes, Geert Wilders, yes, EDL, think about it. And Muslims as well should realize that they enjoy the support of Zionists in the conquest of the West, the same Zionists that are supposed to kill Palestinian children by the hundreds. The world is very complex, don’t you think?
“Why does Rubin support sound policy for Israel but mass immigration for the USA and Europe? Why does Rubin want to see the West transformed into a Third World sewer?”
I think you’ll find the answers to your questions here: http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/books-immigration.html
Not all neocons are Jooos, not all Joooos are neocons, and some/many self-identified neocons beg to differ strongly with Ms. Rubin and her ilk on immigration. But keep in mind that from the Jooooish diaspora’s point of view (a category from which I would exempt most Israelis, as indeed they would largely exempt themselves), the only reason that there is a surviving diaspora today is because of the relatively free immigration policies –pre-Nazi conquest of most of Europe– of a handful of countries, including the USA, before the 1920s, when the nativists became ascendent. I can tolerate a lot of knee-jerk antisemitism amongst a fair part of the right intelligentsia,, but gimme a break! If you’re going to send people to Prof. MacDonald, at the same time, why not also send them to Daniel Greenfield, who blogs as Sultan Knish
“why not also send them to Daniel Greenfield, who blogs as Sultan Knish” – because the jews are not White and therefore should not be allowed to enter the White man’s discourse. Let the jew preach to the jew. Let the White man preach to the White man. Whites should be a priori antisemitic whether you can tolerate it or not.
Reblogged this on The White Tea Room and commented:
Flawless observations! To my Readers, please save this post, as this provides a valuable and concise compendium of the double standards of Our Very Best Friends Forever in the Mideast – the Light Unto the Hellfire of the World the Nation Wreckers have so fervently sought to destroy!
Reblogged this on murderbymedia.
Miss Rubin is fighting for her people. She is fighting for her nation. How is that a bad thing? I respect her race loyalty. She is a jewish supremacist when the issue is her homeland, which is good for her people, her nation. I respect her for that. She also wants the goyim carefully controlled and prevented from hurting or disadvantaging her people who choose to live in Exile in foreign lands like America, Poland, Russia and Germany. I respect that too. She is not being a hypocrite, she is being consistent.
We should follow her example: insist on white supremacism at home and insist on equality and respect for our people who choose to live in foreign lands.
We should not, of course, listen to what she says.
Neocons are much closer to radical leftists like the old Trotskyites, than they are to conservativism. I guess they realized that most Americans lean conservative, so having “conservative” in the name would appeal to them. But there is nothing conservative about them : unless you consider invading a country that is no threat to you “conservative”.