They literally used this picture to illustrate what America needs more of.

The initial argument for third world immigration was that these people would somehow benefit our economy. Jews endlessly sung the refrain that these hard working Pajeets, Pedros and Muhameds would pay our pensions.

Of course, anyone with a few neurons left can tell that worthless, uneducated and lazy brown people are only a burden for White people to carry. The Jews have let in an enemy force, and these people have absolutely no interest in contributing to our society, let alone “pay our pensions.”

The few Mexicans who do work just send all the money back to their homelands, draining America of billions of dollars every year to benefit a foreign state. The rest just collect welfare, food stamps and free health care.

But the goyim know.

So the Jews are now switching things up.

Masha Gessen, a carpet-munching Jewess, is actually making the argument that we should be welcoming the most useless people in the world – because of feelings.

I googled “oven-dodger” and found this picture of Gessen.

New York Times:

When Mr. Trump issued an executive order banning entry by citizens of predominantly Muslim countries, American technology companies responded with a lawsuit in which they stressed that immigrants have founded and run many large tech companies. The revocation of DACA has brought forth similar — and much-quoted — responses from Silicon Valley. When the president threw his support behind a reform plan that would drastically reduce immigration to this country, editorial writers argued against it by pointing out that immigrants benefit the economy.

These arguments usually begin by stating that America is a “land of immigrants.” This not only is an insult to Native Americans and the descendants of those who were brought to this country against their will but also constitutes a sort of sleight of hand. It turns the stories of individual immigrants into the “story of America.” It’s one thing for individuals to base their sense of self-worth on their contribution to the American economy. It’s quite another to claim that America values immigrants because of this contribution: This paves the way to thinking that America should make decisions about immigrants based on whether they benefit the economy. It can even reframe giving safe haven to the persecuted as giving jobs to the well qualified.

So now, saying that “America is a country of immigrants” is a bigoted show of support for the White patriarchal system of oppression.

I guess this is the Jew’s attempt at shifting the Overton window or whatever.

It’s not immigrants’ economic contribution that makes America proud; it’s its adherence to the words inscribed inside the base of the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor/your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” — from the Emma Lazarus poem that the White House adviser Stephen Miller waved away last month during a news conference on immigration reform.

Surprise surprise, another Jew enters the scene!

The controversy following Mr. Miller’s comments focused on the poem. But the argument for refugees is less poetic than it is pragmatic. As Arendt wrote in that essay, “the outlawing of the Jewish people in Europe has been followed closely by the outlawing of most European nations.” This was just a first step, Arendt wrote: “The comity of European peoples went to pieces when, and because, it allowed its weakest member to be excluded and persecuted.”

Ah, of course, it always ends up being about the holocaust, doesn’t it?

We have to let our countries be destroyed by third world sewer cultures, because otherwise we’ll have another holocaust. That’s actually always been their argument, but since they know it’s not very good, Jews usually don’t just come out and say it out right.

Instead, they relied on creating a chain of associations in people’s minds that allowed them to frame the debate in their favor. It goes a bit like this:

1. Nazis are absolute evil.
2. Nazis were nationalists and hated Jews.
3. Everything the Nazis believed was wrong and evil.
4. Therefore, anyone who advocates anything vaguely similar to what Nazis believed is wrong and evil.

Don’t want your son to cut off his penis? You might as well start rounding out Jews, then.

They did this through movies, television, books and any other media they could get their hands on. From that point, they could promote their anti-White agenda through seemingly innocuous (but nonsensical) arguments  like “immigrants are good for the economy,” and anyone who’d argue against it would be portrayed as wrong and evil using the embedded cultural memes mentioned above.

But this isn’t working anymore. They overplayed their hand, and people are completely fed up.

So now we have retard-tier Jews like Gressen spilling the beans in desperation, coming out with this “immigrants are bad, but you have to accept them otherwise you’re a mean-old Nazi” argument.

This is not going to work out too well for them, I can assure you of that.

Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t  lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen.  On a radio show last year, she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda.  She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it.

Here is what she said on the radio interview:

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”

(Source: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/why-get-married/4058506)

For quite some time, the defenders of natural marriage have attempted to point out that the true agenda behind the homosexual demands organizations is not marriage equality; it is the total unraveling of marriage and uprooting traditional values from society.  (This will ultimately include efforts to silence and punish some churches that openly adhere to their religious teachings about marriage and sexual morality.)

While few have been as vocal as this lesbian activist was in this interview, we do have numerical examples proving her point.  When given the opportunity to marry, after laws have been struck down relatively small percentages of homosexuals actually bother to marry compared to their heterosexual counterparts.  This raises question about the true need to unravel marriage for the “fair” extension its benefits.  Only 12 percent of homosexuals in the Netherlands marry compared to 86 percent of their heterosexual peers.  Less than 20 percent of same-sex couples already living together in California married when given the chance in 2008.  In contrast, 91 percent of heterosexual couples in California who are living together are married.

Clearly this is about cultural change and tearing down the traditional family ethic, since it seems that most homosexuals living together neither need nor desire to marry, though they do desire to radically change marriage.

Gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, and we live in a society which roundly applauds them doing so like never before in our history, but they do not have the right to rewrite marriage for all of society.

Masha Gessen, former head of the U.S. government’s Radio Liberty office in Moscow, writes in Slate:

Crimea Is Putin’s Revenge 

On March 24, 1999, the U.S. bombed Kosovo. Putin has been planning his payback ever since.

On March 24, 1999, Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov was on his way to Washington when he got word that NATO had begun bombing Kosovo. He ordered his plane turned around. A few hours later, he landed in a Moscow that was reeling from the insult of not being consulted. Russians had only a vague idea of what Kosovo was but a very strong concept of Serbia being a land of fellow Eastern Orthodox Slavs and of Yugoslavia being a rightful part of Moscow’s sphere of influence.

There was that incident involving Serbia in 1914.

Nnot being consulted—or even, apparently, warned—sent the very clear message that the U.S. had decided it now presided over a unipolar world. There was no longer even the pretense of recognizing Russia’s fading-superpower status: President Bill Clinton had chosen not to wait the few hours it would have taken for Primakov to land in Washington, allowing him to save face by at least pretending to have been in on the conversation.

From this point on, Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s administration, already weak and embattled, would be unable to justify its friendly, perennially de-escalating posture toward the West. Anti-American feelings ran so high you would have thought the U.S. were bombing Russia.

Kind of like how Americans didn’t much appreciate England being bombed in 1940 or Australia being bombed in 1941.

… The mood I found in Belgrade matched Moscow’s perfectly. The country was mobilizing in support of its nationalist leader, Slobodan Milosevic. The few groups and people who continued to oppose him grew more marginalized and embattled by the day. They also grew increasingly paranoid, which paralyzed them. A daily concert in the center of town was literally drumming up support for the war effort, which had acquired the proud status of a defense effort—against the Americans, no less. …

This bizarre outburst of anti-Americanism apparently being related to Americans bombing their country for 78 days.

… In August, Yeltsin anointed as his successor, a virtual unknown named Vladimir Putin. Within a few weeks, Putin became spectacularly popular by launching a new war in Chechnya. Politicians formerly known as liberals praised the Russian army for its performance there; one said it was “regaining its dignity.” He did not mention Kosovo, but he was referring to the general sense of humiliation that had stayed with Russians since the spring.

In December 1999, Putin became acting president, and the following March, he was elected to the office. Over the course of the following 14 years, he nurtured in the Russian public a sense of nostalgia for the Soviet Union and especially for the fear it inspired in the rest of the world. In 2008, Russia invaded the former Soviet republic of Georgia and effectively annexed part of its territory. And now it has done the same with Ukraine. This time Putin mentioned Kosovo. Indeed, in his speech to parliament on Tuesday, he made it very clear that by annexing Crimea he had avenged Russia for what had happened with Kosovo.

“It was our Western partners who created the precedent; they did it themselves, with their own hands, as it were, in a situation that was totally analogous to the Crimean situation, by recognizing Kosovo’s secession from Serbia as legitimate,” said Putin. …

This raises three questions. First, if Putin thinks he is paying the West back for Kosovo, why has he waited so long to strike? Second, what could the United States have done differently to avoid setting off this long and frightening chain reaction? And finally, what can the United States do now?

In retrospect, the long wait makes perfect sense. Once Putin held power in Russia, he never planned to cede it, so he had all the time in the world. Two of Putin’s key character traits are vengefulness and opportunism. He relishes his grudges and finds motivation in them: He has enjoyed holding the bombing of Yugoslavia against the United States all these years—and knowing he would strike back some day. …

Could the United States and its allies have undertaken anything other than military intervention to resolve the Kosovo crisis? In fact, they did. After the bombing campaign, which strengthened support for Milosevic and weakened his opponents, the U.S. poured cash into rebuilding the Serbian opposition. The funding was contingent on the disparate opposition groups agreeing to work together and attending regular coordination meetings held in Budapest, Hungary, and run by people whom participants understood to represent the State Department.

That’s pretty interesting. The Wikipedia article on the subject doesn’t mention anything about American involvement in the overthrow of Milosevic, but I presume Ms. Gessen knows of what she speaks.

The plan for the anti-Milosevic revolution was worked out in these meetings down to the smallest detail, including where the leaders of each of the 18 participating political organizations would be if mass protests broke out in Belgrade. They did, in October 2000, and Milosevic didn’t seem to know what hit him.

In other words, the U.S. government hit him.

Could a plan like that have been carried out without the NATO bombing campaign? Could Milosevic have been removed sooner without the bombing? I think so. On the other hand, would he have succeeded in killing and displacing many more people in Kosovo before being deposed, if it hadn’t been for the NATO intervention? This is an impossible question to answer. What we do know is that Yugoslavia’s wars were very much one man’s wars,

They were?

Granted, I remember back when Milosevic was the New Hitler of the hour. But fighting over the breakup of Yugoslavia had been predicted in the West long before anybody had heard of Milosevic — for example, in British general John Hackman’s 1978 bestseller The Third World War, WWIII starts with a fight in breakaway Yugoslav Slovenia in 1985 that both the Soviets and the U.S. Marines intervene in.

and it was the removal of that man from power, not the bombing, that finally ended them. Russia’s wars are, similarly, Putin’s wars.

It is also impossible to know whether Putin would have happened to Russia if it had not been for the bombing of Yugoslavia. I believe he would not have. But now that he has been in power for more than 14 years and is planning to stay forever, what should the United States do? Bombing Moscow does not seem to be an option.

Keep that in mind: “Bombing Moscow does not seem to be an option.” Airstrikes on Moscow can’t be part of America’s Plan A. It’s just not an option. At present. And nuking Russia down to melted glass isn’t even part of Plan B. Yet. (However, it should be noted, just for the record, that it’s still only the beginning of Spring so that leaves plenty of time to invade Russia and conquer Moscow before winter sets in. It’s March 22, not June 22.)

But helping the Russian opposition in the same committed, involved, and even meddling manner as the U.S. once helped the Serbian opposition should be. Putin already believes the U.S. State Department is backing the few protest activists left in Moscow—and is punishing the activists for it.

In other words, nudge nudge, wink wink, the U.S. State Department is backing the few protest activists left in Moscow. Gessen and Putin seem to be on the same page when it comes to their understanding of How These Things Work (they’re just not on the same side).

Look, I don’t really know anything about these Color Revolutions. But I do have decent reading comprehension. And this former U.S. government official, who seems to be omnipresent in the U.S. media, is, when read carefully, being fairly blatant.

On the other hand, I presume Gessen is not financially disinterested. She’s been on the U.S. government payroll before, so it’s in her bank account’s interest to advocate more U.S. taxpayer spending on a Color Revolution in Moscow. But the concept of “disinterestedness” is now considered too boring to remember.

There are many differences between Putin today and Milosevic 15 years ago, all of which boil down to the fact that Putin is a lot stronger and harder to remove—all the more reason for the U.S. to put its best minds to work on helping Russians accomplish just this. It may be our only chance of righting the course of history.

In other words, pay Masha Gessen to wage World War G.

Masha Gessen is a Russian-American journalist who is the author of Words Will Break Cement: The Passion of Pussy Riot and co-editor of Gay Propaganda: Russian Love Stories.

Personally, I find the idea of risking A Land War in Europe by trying to destabilize Russia unappealing, but that just shows that I’m a wacko extremist, unlike the highly respectable Ms. Gessen.