Why are those on the left psyop'd to support mass immigration?

  • Twórca wątku Twórca wątku Auron
  • Data rozpoczęcia Data rozpoczęcia
  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Intelligence agencies developed the identity politics psyop in the 60s, and deployed it against every left wing organisation they could conceivably infiltrate. It can be seen hapenning repeatedly over the latter half of the 20th century/early 21st century. It was remarkably effective at neutralising the threat of a "real" left and replacing it with a liberal version that actually serves, rather than threatens, the elites.

It's tinfoil hat material but I stick by this story. What helped it work is that most leftist organisations in the west were already led by middle class academic types, not workers; they were always much more easily co-opted to support and proselytise subversive values.
IMG_5541.webp
I’ve got no idea if this graph is real, but it illustrates my thoughts on the matter quite well.

True idpol, intersectionality, critical theory - all of that was reserved for small, fringe academic departments until around the time of OWS, when it all suddenly seemed to start going ‘mainstream’ in a major way.

Other things conveniently converged, like record numbers going to college/university and the invention of the iPhone meaning everyone has perfect, portable indoctrination machines in their hand/on their person all the time.

Non-whites in all advertising, all the time. Non-white celebrities either being gods or victims or both. Music… movies… games… television…

So much shit in the last two decades. It’s been an overwhelming psyop.
 
Leftism sees colonialism, specifically in Africa and Asia, as the original sin of Europe that it must now atone for.

They believe that western countries got rich of colonialism while irreversibly fucking over the third world (both verifiably false, matter of fact the current sate of Africa is the fault of leftist economics just as much as the colonialists) so now obviously we need to let the niggers in.
 
True idpol, intersectionality, critical theory - all of that was reserved for small, fringe academic departments until around the time of OWS, when it all suddenly seemed to start going ‘mainstream’ in a major way.

Other things conveniently converged, like record numbers going to college/university and the invention of the iPhone meaning everyone has perfect, portable indoctrination machines in their hand/on their person all the time.
Basically. I am pretty sure it had been going on way before that, I have spoken to old school lefties who insist that undercover cops are basically a fact of life as soon as a group gains any traction. I think OWS was just the turning point where they got the whole thing down to an art form.

The part I'm not 100% sure about is if they deliberately pushed it out onto the internet as a form of propaganda, or if that part actually was organic once enough people had been infected. Either way, once it got out, it was too late, we're still fighting it nearly 20 years on.
 
Meanwhile her party are in favour of flooding the job market with hundreds of thousands of migrants and even oppose stopping illegal ones.
"Equality" in the civil/human rights regime doesn't mean people should be treated equally before the law; it means humans are interchangeable widgets, units of production indistinguishable before the god of the balance sheet. So long as the widget produces value/tax revenue, then it is a good widget, externalities be damned.
How do you think an ordinary working class person's life will improve with a huge amount of "new Europeans" competing with them for all services and opportunities?
They'll get to eat bananas and rice (somalia), mud cookies (haitians), kebabs (turks), and curry (jeets) whenever they want. Much improvement.
Or will big corpos hire the "new Europeans" at the lowest rate possible.
They will and GDP will increase, which should make you proud to be a citizenresident of [Insert Your Economic Zone Here].
Will rapes and violent crimes continue to rise as our high trust society ever erodes to the point where we can't tell people to turn their phone's off of loud speaker on a bus/train because we don't wanna get assaulted?
All cultures are equal and valid, widget.

Except yours, because at some point in the past, someone who looked similar to you and/or spoke your language was mean to a brown person who didn't understand how sanitation works.
I want to know why. Why are the left today so obsessed with promoting causes that actively harm us both on an individual level and as a societal whole?
The same reason people donate to the ASPCA. They want to feel good about lavishing resources on creatures they patronizingly regard as alien and materially inferior to themselves, yet are morally superior because they exist closer to a 'state of nature' (savagery). At the least the colonialist built them schools, hospitals, and railroads in exchange for their raw materials and suppressing their barbaric tendencies. The progressive/liberal/leftist wants to simultaneously import them to a civilized country while allowing them to persist in their barbarism.
 
Excellent OP and some great replies to this thread. One additional observation I'd like to include;

It's fascinating how these people are nominally anti-racist, but unflinchingly support working arrangements that are effectively slavery. American discourse recently centred around the repatriation of industry, and it was curious to see progressives decry returning manufacturing to the US using legal workers as "racist".

"It would make products cost more!" they say. Yes, so does increasing taxation and the minimum wage, but those are things you support, no? Are Chinese and Mexican people somehow worth less in your mind? Do they not deserve the protections that the law provides them? If not, why support sweatshop conditions (Chinese) and under-the-table arrangements (Mexicans) that deprive workers of the compensation they deserve?

Naturally, it's just a knee-jerk reaction to anything and everything the Orange Man says regardless of its merit (or if it will actually happen, as free market oriented parties also have clear reasons to support mass immigration), but it's so interesting to watch the NPC script in action.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
The Right is a loose coalition of everyone who is net-productive, so rightists will genuinely determine their position on an issue by whether they believe it is good or bad for them.

The Left is a strict hierarchy of obligate parasites, in which each layer is terminally dependent on the handouts and connections of the layer above. The boomer liberals baying for more pajeets and somalis may not benefit from their importation, but their comfortable lifestyle exists at the discretion of their owners, who do benefit from their importation.

The top of the Left, of course, supports immigration out of self-interest - a homogeneous society would oust them from their unearned wealth and power. They're a disease that must inflict autoimmune disorders in order to remain in the host body.
 
Marx was against immigration. He literally wrote it's the tool of the capitalist to reduce the workers' bargaining power.
This is a very narrow reading of his position. He had no issue with immigration in itself, but rather with what he saw as the promotion of division between natives and migrant workers as a means of control by the holders of capital. Towards the end of his life, when his vaunted revolution had failed to materialise in the industrialised nations, he turned his hopes to pre-industrial societies and went full primitivist in his leanings, believing that a capitalist stage was no longer a necessary step on the path to true communism, and that the world-wide revolution would start in Africa or Russia. He sought the end of national borders and saw absolutely no issue with the destruction of national culture by immigration, in the pursuit of his utopian ideal.
 
it's not a matter of left wing principles vs right wing principles. it's psychological weaklings vs normal people. lefties, as a psychological type, are machiavellian individualists who rim the powerful for personal gain. thus, they can be psy-oped into support any perversion the elites want them to.

Read Ted kaczynski on leftist psychology. the mad bastard nailed it.
 
Because deep down they are motivated by a pathological hatred of White People, Christianity, and rural areas. They ultimately have no more true values than that even if they'd claim otherwise.
I'd say that they do have ideas on how their perfect world will work once le evil white man is put down, but those ideas are all fantasy and will not materialize.
 
Intelligence agencies developed the identity politics psyop in the 60s, and deployed it against every left wing organisation they could conceivably infiltrate. It can be seen hapenning repeatedly over the latter half of the 20th century/early 21st century. It was remarkably effective at neutralising the threat of a "real" left and replacing it with a liberal version that actually serves, rather than threatens, the elites.

It's tinfoil hat material but I stick by this story. What helped it work is that most leftist organisations in the west were already led by middle class academic types, not workers; they were always much more easily co-opted to support and proselytise subversive values.
Globalhomo actually weaponized ideology politics since the Roman Empire and it is by the beginning of the 20th century where they knew how to name it.

Before then it's just Abrahamic Religion. And that sort of "Current Year" insanity lasted for more than a millennia and was normalized.

After Occupy failed, it was the end of the present, and the start of Current Year.

Over a decade of SJW BS later, it's still Current Year. Seemingly no end in sight.

And guess what it's just the fucking beginning.

Watch when the identity politics literally lead to civil war, globalization and concentration camps for everyone but the billionaires.

Because this is more or less what happened to Europe at the 5th Century after Christianity took a couple centuries to slowly but surely turning itself into the neverending new normal.

And for us, it would come much quicker than that and without warning.

Speaking of, I have noticed a tendency among SJWs to treat fictional characters as more or less real.

Bullshit such as "fictional characters can't consent to sexualization", "canon" age as absolute, etc.
This is why if you publish a game on Playstation right now even if you show a single piece of cleavage high odds it will be considered Haram.

Before identity politics:
1000111172.jpg

After Identity politics:
1000111173.jpg


Before identity politics:
1000111174.png
After identity politics:
1000111175.png
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Can you imagine if it came to that? Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg would be indirectly responsible for leading America to civil war... by introducing that iPhone (leading to "smartphone zombies") and Facebook (mainstream "social media")... which lead to Current Year Clown World. Also, Anita Sarkeesian would be at least one of those more directly responsible for a civil war, as she was one of those who helped make "identity politics" bullshit more mainstream, with that bullshit propaganda on women depicted in vidyas.
 
This is a very narrow reading of his position. He had no issue with immigration in itself, but rather with what he saw as the promotion of division between natives and migrant workers as a means of control by the holders of capital. Towards the end of his life, when his vaunted revolution had failed to materialise in the industrialised nations, he turned his hopes to pre-industrial societies and went full primitivist in his leanings, believing that a capitalist stage was no longer a necessary step on the path to true communism, and that the world-wide revolution would start in Africa or Russia. He sought the end of national borders and saw absolutely no issue with the destruction of national culture by immigration, in the pursuit of his utopian ideal.
You sound like my university professors when I would call them out on their pro immigration bullshit. Just throw a word salad and not face what I said head on.

At the end of the day immigration hurts the native workers which is what Marx explicitly wrote (he wrote about Irish hurting the English workers).

And we will never be able to get rid of borders so no more talk of fairy tales or some world wide utopia. You think the Arabs, Indians, Chinese, or Africans will all follow the same rules or laws (laws and rules are based on different cultural norms).
 
At the end of the day immigration hurts the native workers which is what Marx explicitly wrote (he wrote about Irish hurting the English workers).

Only in the context of their use to foil the revolution.

From the same letter people quote to prove Marx opposed immigration:
“England, the metropolis of capital, the power which has up to now ruled the world market, is at present the most important country for the workers’ revolution, and moreover the only country in which the material conditions for this revolution have reached a certain degree of maturity. It is consequently the most important object of the International Working Men’s Association to hasten the social revolution in England. The sole means of hastening it is to make Ireland independent. Hence, it is the task of the International everywhere to put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly with Ireland. It is the special task of the Central Council in London to make the English workers realise that for them the national emancipation of Ireland is not a question of abstract justice or humanitarian sentiment but the first condition of their own social emancipation.”

These are roughly the main points of the circular letter, which thus at the same time give the raisons d’étre of the resolutions passed by the Central Council on the Irish amnesty. A little later I sent a strongly-worded anonymous article[d] on the treatment of the Fenians by the English, etc., attacking Gladstone, etc., to the Internationale (organ of our Belgian Central Committee[e] in Brussels). In this article I have also denounced the French Republicans (the Marseillaise had printed some nonsense on Ireland written here by the wretched Talandier) because in their national egoism they are saving all their wrath for the Empire.

That worked. My daughter Jenny wrote a series of articles to the Marseillaise, signing them J. Williams (she had called herself Jenny Williams in her private letter to the editorial board) and published, among other things, O’Donovan Rossa’s letter. Hence immense noise.

After many years of cynical refusal Gladstone was thereby finally compelled to agree to a parliamentary enquiry into the treatment of the Fenian prisoners. Jenny is now the regular correspondent on Irish affairs for the Marseillaise. (This is naturally to be a secret between us.) The British Government and press are furious because the Irish question has thus now been placed on the agenda in France and that these rogues are now being watched and exposed via Paris on the whole Continent.

We hit another bird with the same stone, we have forced the Irish leaders, journalists, etc., in Dublin to get into contact with us, which the General Council had been unable to achieve previously!

You have wide field in America for work along the same lines. A coalition of the German workers with the Irish workers (and of course also with the English and American workers who are prepared to accede to it) is the greatest achievement you could bring about now. This must be done in the name of the International. The social significance of the Irish question must be made clear.
Marx did not oppose immigration, except that it was used by the bourgeois to divide the workers. His solution to immigration wasn't to stop it, or even to manage it, but to turn the workers away from their ethnic differences and towards the common goal of revolution, and to explicitly embrace sectarian messaging in order to browbeat the English workers into setting aside their resentment of the Irish and joining this revolutionary movement.
 
So this guy completely goes in a roundabout way to defend the left psyop. Marx was able to identify that immigration makes wages go down. Which is why every union before they become corrupt in the 1950s were against immigration.

Like i said before and you just repeated Marx thought immigration wouldn't matter if we were all communist with one government and one set of laws.

THAT ISN'T FUCKING POSSIBLE AS EVERY SHITSKIN THINKS THEIR WAY OF LIFE IS THE BEST. YOU THINK YOU ARE GONNA STOP INDIANS FROM DRINKING COW PISS? THE SOMALI FROM CUTTING OFF CLITS?

We are literally replacing every worker, blue collar and white collar, with pajeets in Canada who take lower wages and higher their own. And no matter how much time they spend here they still look out for their people.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole