Rivers of Blood

Rozalia · March 27, 2016

article-2534353-0003211600000C1D-321_634

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech

"Rivers of Blood" is the name given to a speech a British MP called Enoch Powell gave in 1968. Some say the principle in the message didn't come to pass but some say it did, your thoughts? Many of you won't be British so having the full context may be difficult though if you feel it's happened to your country then that may do in seeing the validity of it.

The full speech is below.

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."

Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.

After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country." I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: "I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.

I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's Office.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: "How can its dimensions be reduced?" Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.

The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancÃ©s whom they have never seen.

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

I stress the words "for settlement." This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.

Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.

Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens." This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.

The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.

Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another's.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.

I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:

â€œEight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

â€œThe day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than Â£2 per week. â€œShe went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this country." So she went home.

â€œThe telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.â€

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration." To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.

Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:

'The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.'

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

Many elements to me seem to have been accurate, the concentration of immigrants and later their many children in large communities kills integration, anyone could tell you that but many people carry on pretending that it will all magically work out. He spoke of the dangers of multiculturalism and immigration and was met with grandstanding from the left wing, and the right wing believed it to be true but were too cowardly and also attacked. Even recently a MP and parliamentary candidate have been made to resign/sacked for saying they agreed with the message, that ultimately it was not wrong to refuse to tolerate. He was labeled a bigot, racist, racialist, whatever buzzword you want to use for merely speaking common sense, his words taken out of context (attributing other people's words to him for one) and reality ignored.

Andrezj Kolarov · March 27, 2016

A homogeneous country is a strong country, the capitalists are a tiny minority but they rule the world by finding and exploiting divisions in the working class, whether they be racial, ethnic, national, language, gender, religion. If the bourgeoisie successfully divide the working class into innumerable strata, each strata opposed to each other, as they have done in racially-obsessed countries like America, then the working class is not united and poses no threat to bourgeois power.

Capitalists hate homogeneous countries, this is why they attempt to create porous national borders, so countries are flooded with many peoples of different races, nationalities and religious, all speaking their own language, worshiping their own gods' and bickering with each other, they attempt to disperse and disorganize the working class with mass-immigration. Then the workers will begin hating each other, fighting each other for the crumbs off the table of the capitalists, the native workers will blame the immigrant workers, and so on. Only then are the bourgeois assured of continued power and unlimited cheap labor.

Once the working masses are united as a single compact, coherent political force, behind a single political party, where all divisions have been defeated, can they revolt and seize power by force from the capitalists.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Andrezj Kolarov

fistofdoom · March 27, 2016

sounds like a bunch of commie mumbo-jumbo to me

kek

Rozalia · March 27, 2016

sounds like a bunch of commie mumbo-jumbo to me

kek

Do you ever have anything of value to say? Powell was a Conservative, nowhere near a Communist.

fistofdoom · March 27, 2016

Do you ever have anything of value to say? Powell was a Conservative, nowhere near a Communist.

Take a joke, arse.

Rozalia · March 27, 2016

Take a joke, arse.

Would you know, be easier to tell if you didn't spend another thread calling me sick in the head.

Big Brother · March 27, 2016

A homogeneous country is a strong country, the capitalists are a tiny minority but they rule the world by finding and exploiting divisions in the working class, whether they be racial, ethnic, national, language, gender, religion. If the bourgeoisie successfully divide the working class into innumerable strata, each strata opposed to each other, as they have done in racially-obsessed countries like America, then the working class is not united and poses no threat to bourgeois power.

Capitalists hate homogeneous countries, this is why they attempt to create porous national borders, so countries are flooded with many peoples of different races, nationalities and religious, all speaking their own language, worshiping their own gods' and bickering with each other, they attempt to disperse and disorganize the working class with mass-immigration. Then the workers will begin hating each other, fighting each other for the crumbs off the table of the capitalists, the native workers will blame the immigrant workers, and so on. Only then are the bourgeois assured of continued power and unlimited cheap labor.

Once the working masses are united as a single compact, coherent political force, behind a single political party, where all divisions have been defeated, can they revolt and seize power by force from the capitalists.

You're right, capitalists rule the world by finding and exploiting divisions in the working class. And let's say you're right, that they do attempt to create porous borders and flood them with many peoples of different races, nationalities, etc. They can attempt to do this, they can attempt to pit workers against each other, native workers against immigrant workers and so on, but does that mean we shouldn't allow immigration? No, what it means is that we shouldn't fall for the bullshit capitalists feed us.

If the capitalists create the porous borders and if they try to pit people against each other and you allow yourselves to be duped into believing that immigrants are hurting you and your country, then you have failed. Then you have been duped. Then you are doing exactly what the capitalists want you to. What you should do is speak against those ideas, accept the immigrants as your fellow human beings, your fellow members of the working class and work together with them to topple the capitalists. That's how you foil their plans, not by rejecting people from other countries because they live their lives differently than what you do. By rejecting them, by being against immigration and the unification of different workers from different cultures and places, you are falling for their lies, you are letting them exploit the divisions in the working class, you are letting them weaken and divide the working class so that they can keep them in each strata opposed to each other.

If you really want the working masses to be united as a single compact, a coherent political force, behind a single political party, where all divisions have been defeated, so that they may seize power from the capitalists, then open the borders, tell the capitalists to !@#$ off, and work with your fellow workers to achieve that goal. Closing the borders, not allowing immigration will only fit right into their plans and will only serve to keep the workers of the world divided, so that the capitalists can keep their power.

Rozalia · March 28, 2016

You're right, capitalists rule the world by finding and exploiting divisions in the working class. And let's say you're right, that they do attempt to create porous borders and flood them with many peoples of different races, nationalities, etc. They can attempt to do this, they can attempt to pit workers against each other, native workers against immigrant workers and so on, but does that mean we shouldn't allow immigration? No, what it means is that we shouldn't fall for the bullshit capitalists feed us.

If the capitalists create the porous borders and if they try to pit people against each other and you allow yourselves to be duped into believing that immigrants are hurting you and your country, then you have failed. Then you have been duped. Then you are doing exactly what the capitalists want you to. What you should do is speak against those ideas, accept the immigrants as your fellow human beings, your fellow members of the working class and work together with them to topple the capitalists. That's how you foil their plans, not by rejecting people from other countries because they live their lives differently than what you do. By rejecting them, by being against immigration and the unification of different workers from different cultures and places, you are falling for their lies, you are letting them exploit the divisions in the working class, you are letting them weaken and divide the working class so that they can keep them in each strata opposed to each other.

If you really want the working masses to be united as a single compact, a coherent political force, behind a single political party, where all divisions have been defeated, so that they may seize power from the capitalists, then open the borders, tell the capitalists to !@#$ off, and work with your fellow workers to achieve that goal. Closing the borders, not allowing immigration will only fit right into their plans and will only serve to keep the workers of the world divided, so that the capitalists can keep their power.

What you've basically said is if we give them everything they want that they'll somehow lose when everybody suddenly decides to join hands. No, mass immigration is one of their tools and those tools have to be broken before anything else. Do you think for example these "refugees" (and those already here) have any interest in what you just said? Do you think their many children will? No. Look at the parties such as Labour and Democrats whose support of immigration seemed to be importing future voters (in addition to the other globalist claptrap)... do you think bringing in a group that will by the large support them will help the "good fight"? Don't be ridiculous.

You do not destroy Internationalism with more Internationalism, only Nationalism can do that.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Rozalia

Big Brother · March 28, 2016

What you've basically said is if we give them everything they want that they'll somehow lose when everybody suddenly decides to join hands. No, mass immigration is one of their tools and those tools have to be broken before anything else. Do you think for example these "refugees" (and those already here) have any interest in what you just said? Do you think their many children will? No. Look at the parties such as Labour and Democrats whose support of immigration seemed to be importing future voters (in addition to the other globalist claptrap)... do you think bringing in a group that will by the large support them will help the "good fight"? Don't be ridiculous.

You do not destroy Internationalism with more Internationalism, only Nationalism can do that.

No, that's not what I said at all, that's what you're reading into my post. What I said is that you shouldn't give them everything they want. They want immigration because they seek division. Mass immigration is one of their tools, like you said. What I'm encouraging is that you take their tool away from them and turn it against them, by not letting their ideas of division seep into your heads. They can't divide the working class if the working class doesn't allow itself to fall for their lies that are meant to divide. Mass immigration can just as easily be a tool used against the capitalists as it can be a tool used by them. I'm not suggesting that everyone will suddenly join hands and that everything will automatically work out, I'm not suggesting that refugees and immigrants suddenly have an interest in uniting the working class and working with the "native" workers. That would be idiotic, you know it and I know it. It would be challenging, it would take work, it would mean teaching people about why uniting the working class is beneficial to them and why being divided is harmful to them. I don't give a damn what the silly Labour and Democrats are doing or what they're trying to do with the people they're bringing into their country. The people they bring in won't automatically support them, that's not a given. Those people could just as well participate in doing the exact opposite. What you're suggesting is that we accept the lies and division the capitalists would have us believe in order for us to stay divided, and rejecting and disallowing immigration because you've fallen for their lies, which in turn plays into their plans to divide us into nice little homogeneous strata, separated by national borders. What should be done is the opposite, don't believe what they say, don't believe that immigration means division, don't let them trick you. Prove them wrong by working with your new countrymen, however challenging it may be and use their tools against them to bring them down. The people are who decides what the result of immigration is, if they choose to believe it divides them it will divide them. But if the people believe that they can look past each others differences, that these people, however foreign they may seem, can contribute and work together with you to create a better world for the working class, the capitalists will fail at their game of division and all the exploitation they're trying to accomplish.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Big Brother

Rozalia · March 28, 2016

No, that's not what I said at all, that's what you're reading into my post. What I said is that you shouldn't give them everything they want. They want immigration because they seek division. Mass immigration is one of their tools, like you said. What I'm encouraging is that you take their tool away from them and turn it against them, by not letting their ideas of division seep into your heads. They can't divide the working class if the working class doesn't allow itself to fall for their lies that are meant to divide. Mass immigration can just as easily be a tool used against the capitalists as it can be a tool used by them. I'm not suggesting that everyone will suddenly join hands and that everything will automatically work out, I'm not suggesting that refugees and immigrants suddenly have an interest in uniting the working class and working with the "native" workers. That would be idiotic, you know it and I know it. It would be challenging, it would take work, it would mean teaching people about why uniting the working class is beneficial to them and why being divided is harmful to them. I don't give a damn what the silly Labour and Democrats are doing or what they're trying to do with the people they're bringing into their country. The people they bring in won't automatically support them, that's not a given. Those people could just as well participate in doing the exact opposite. What you're suggesting is that we accept the lies and division the capitalists would have us believe in order for us to stay divided, and rejecting and disallowing immigration because you've fallen for their lies, which in turn plays into their plans to divide us into nice little homogeneous strata, separated by national borders. What should be done is the opposite, don't believe what they say, don't believe that immigration means division, don't let them trick you. Prove them wrong by working with your new countrymen, however challenging it may be and use their tools against them to bring them down. The people are who decides what the result of immigration is, if they choose to believe it divides them it will divide them. But if the people believe that they can look past each others differences, that these people, however foreign they may seem, can contribute and work together with you to create a better world for the working class, the capitalists will fail at their game of division and all the exploitation they're trying to accomplish.

And division they will get. As I've been saying such people do not integrate and thats all well and good for them, preferable in fact as long as they can keep the people suppressed. To that end they've created what is called Multiculturalism, they steadily increase the numbers while lying about their effects, the mainstream media regardless of it portraying itself on the left or right will smear and destroy any who against it, and of course the political establishment make a mockery of democracy for they are a one party with the same agenda.

Not only do I think your way won't work for these people who have not and will not integrate without government enforcing it (and those in government have no interest as stated), but even if you were to win it would keep the door open for them to creep in again. We need cultural homogeneity and Nationalism to defend ourselves against a global enemy, the most evil enemy in human history for it aims to conquer the entire planet, to exploit and harm all people, and to that end they currently occupy our countries and program people into believing how their dominance is a good thing. What you see as "division" among National lines is not as clear cut as you put for it is organising people in a united resistance. It is difficult to move the people to fight back as it is, complicating the matter with your internationalism will do no favours to anybody but the enemy of course.

Big Brother · March 28, 2016

And division they will get. As I've been saying such people do not integrate and thats all well and good for them, preferable in fact as long as they can keep the people suppressed. To that end they've created what is called Multiculturalism, they steadily increase the numbers while lying about their effects, the mainstream media regardless of it portraying itself on the left or right will smear and destroy any who against it, and of course the political establishment make a mockery of democracy for they are a one party with the same agenda.

Not only do I think your way won't work for these people who have not and will not integrate without government enforcing it (and those in government have no interest as stated), but even if you were to win it would keep the door open for them to creep in again. We need cultural homogeneity and Nationalism to defend ourselves against a global enemy, the most evil enemy in human history for it aims to conquer the entire planet, to exploit and harm all people, and to that end they currently occupy our countries and program people into believing how their dominance is a good thing. What you see as "division" among National lines is not as clear cut as you put for it is organising people in a united resistance. It is difficult to move the people to fight back as it is, complicating the matter with your internationalism will do no favours to anybody but the enemy of course.

They will only get division if you allow them to dupe you. I don't know what you mean by "such people", but I can't agree with any people being suppressed. The effects of multiculturalism is not in the hands of the capitalists because they are the few who rely on making the many believe their lies and exercise their will. If you don't like what the mainstream media has to say, don't read it. You do not have to listen to the mainstream media or the establishment, and neither does anyone else. Skepticism against these things are pretty widespread anyway, as you are proof of yourself. No one is forcing anyone to listen to these people.

Of course people won't integrate without incentive and it's the government's responsibility to provide that incentive and to provide the opportunities and resources immigrants need to integrate. If the current government fails to do so, get a new one that won't fail. Human beings are perfectly capable of integrating into new and different societies, they have done so numerous times throughout history and in our modern day and age, and your belief that they cannot is not enough to make it true. We don't need cultural homogeneity and nationalism to defend ourselves against a global enemy, by which I assume you mean global capitalism. The most effective tool against global capitalism is global or world revolution, which requires the working class of all cultures and creeds to band together. You say that they program people into believing how their dominance is a good thing. Well I'm sad to say, you have been programmed into believing that division among national lines, that nationalism and homogeneity are tools against capitalism when they are in fact tools in favor of capitalism. They are the very tools of division you seek to struggle against. In the developed countries of the world, where capitalism has reached it's most developed state, it's not difficult for regular citizens to grasp the concept of internationalism and the fact that all these people living in all these different countries aren't all that different from each other. If you understand it and I understand it, other people do as well. It's not an obstacle, however much you want it to be. I may be a nationalist, but I will not be tricked into believing that I should reject people because they happen to be located across national borders or come from other places, and neither should you if you truly seek to fight against capitalism in its current state and its exploitation.

Rozalia · March 28, 2016

They will only get division if you allow them to dupe you. I don't know what you mean by "such people", but I can't agree with any people being suppressed. The effects of multiculturalism is not in the hands of the capitalists because they are the few who rely on making the many believe their lies and exercise their will. If you don't like what the mainstream media has to say, don't read it. You do not have to listen to the mainstream media or the establishment, and neither does anyone else. Skepticism against these things are pretty widespread anyway, as you are proof of yourself. No one is forcing anyone to listen to these people.

Of course people won't integrate without incentive and it's the government's responsibility to provide that incentive and to provide the opportunities and resources immigrants need to integrate. If the current government fails to do so, get a new one that won't fail. Human beings are perfectly capable of integrating into new and different societies, they have done so numerous times throughout history and in our modern day and age, and your belief that they cannot is not enough to make it true. We don't need cultural homogeneity and nationalism to defend ourselves against a global enemy, by which I assume you mean global capitalism. The most effective tool against global capitalism is global or world revolution, which requires the working class of all cultures and creeds to band together. You say that they program people into believing how their dominance is a good thing. Well I'm sad to say, you have been programmed into believing that division among national lines, that nationalism and homogeneity are tools against capitalism when they are in fact tools in favor of capitalism. They are the very tools of division you seek to struggle against. In the developed countries of the world, where capitalism has reached it's most developed state, it's not difficult for regular citizens to grasp the concept of internationalism and the fact that all these people living in all these different countries aren't all that different from each other. If you understand it and I understand it, other people do as well. It's not an obstacle, however much you want it to be. I may be a nationalist, but I will not be tricked into believing that I should reject people because they happen to be located across national borders or come from other places, and neither should you if you truly seek to fight against capitalism in its current state and its exploitation.

You talk as if simply not listening to the media is enough. When the figures who speak out against it all get campaigns against them then not listening isn't enough, for a lot of people do listen and they believe. People become afraid to speak up for fear of being ruined.

No, going from one internationalist party to another will not fix anything. They are capable of integrating yes, never said they couldn't, it's even what I want... but this particular brand they have cultivated won't for they are too high in number, supported by multiculturalism, and other such tools.

First of all Nationalism was not programmed into me, they instead tried to ingrain the exact opposite and failed. Now as for your internationalism I can make no sense of it, as Communists (I assume what you are) should look to achieve their goals nationally before thinking of such a thing. You want to free everybody at once but please, how can that happen if we cannot even free ourselves. Once countries across the world including significant ones start freeing themselves that will have a global effect don't you worry, internationalism is completely unnecessary for said global effect.

To sum it up. I want to break all their tools and expel them. You want to strengthen all their tools and believe if you do so it will work out, that what is bad now won't get much worse and do you know what that leads to? That leads to civil war, that leads to death, that leads to genocide. Look at my ideas on the matter for example, extreme now perhaps, but when things get worse and worse such extremes start to look like soft touch stuff. Talk of mine such as breaking up the ghettos and getting them to integrate becomes, "they're scum who don't deserve to live", and it is what is soft touch stuff now that becomes the new extreme.I don't want that to happen which is why we need to fix things before they get to that point.

Big Brother · March 28, 2016

You talk as if simply not listening to the media is enough. When the figures who speak out against it all get campaigns against them then not listening isn't enough, for a lot of people do listen and they believe. People become afraid to speak up for fear of being ruined.

No, going from one internationalist party to another will not fix anything. They are capable of integrating yes, never said they couldn't, it's even what I want... but this particular brand they have cultivated won't for they are too high in number, supported by multiculturalism, and other such tools.

First of all Nationalism was not programmed into me, they instead tried to ingrain the exact opposite and failed. Now as for your internationalism I can make no sense of it, as Communists (I assume what you are) should look to achieve their goals nationally before thinking of such a thing. You want to free everybody at once but please, how can that happen if we cannot even free ourselves. Once countries across the world including significant ones start freeing themselves that will have a global effect don't you worry, internationalism is completely unnecessary for said global effect.

To sum it up. I want to break all their tools and expel them. You want to strengthen all their tools and believe if you do so it will work out, that what is bad now won't get much worse and do you know what that leads to? That leads to civil war, that leads to death, that leads to genocide. Look at my ideas on the matter for example, extreme now perhaps, but when things get worse and worse such extremes start to look like soft touch stuff. Talk of mine such as breaking up the ghettos and getting them to integrate becomes, "they're scum who don't deserve to live", and it is what is soft touch stuff now that becomes the new extreme.I don't want that to happen which is why we need to fix things before they get to that point.

Ignore the campaigns. Convince the people who listen and believe otherwise. Rid them of their fear of being ruined. It's all within reach.

Who cares about the parties? They are structures that can easily be circumvented. The power doesn't lay with political parties, it lays with the masses of regular people. No matter how many party members they have, they will never be able to outnumber the collective forces of the working masses, and multiculturalism can be a tool for more people than just the established parties.

I never said that nationalism was programmed into you, rather that you've been programmed to believe that the notions of division among national lines, nationalism and homogeneity as you would use them are tools against capitalism while they actually become tools in favor of capitalism. I'm no Communist, and if you knew true Communism (the kind that was not corrupted by Stalin's concept of "Socialism in one country"), you'd know that Communists seek and believe that world revolution is the only way to secure the world and lay the foundation for a Utopian Communist society. Communists are primarily internationalists, not nationalists. Marx wrote "workers of the world, unite" not workers of this or that country, but all of them. It's impossible for one nation to accomplish the goals set by Communism if there are still other nations in existence that still resist the ideology.

I don't expect everyone will be "freed" at once, I expect it will be a long and arduous process taking varying amounts of time for different people in different places. But I do believe that the sooner these people in all these different places move past their differences and begin working together, the better. And the more people who join this movement, across national borders, ethnicity, religion and whatever other divisions the capitalists will seek to use to divide them, the stronger and more efficient such a movement will be. People don't need to consider themselves to be internationalists to gain the intended global effect, but they do need to be able to work with foreign people from different cultures and they need to be able to understand internationalism, what it means and how it can be used in the struggle against global exploitation.

I understand that you want to break their tools but the methods you believe will reach this goal have the opposite effect, the effect you claim that I seek. What I actually seek is control of their tools in order to use them to strengthen the masses, the working class and weaken the capitalists. It would hardly be the first time this has been done. Before these tools can be dismantled, they must be spent in favor of the working class to the utmost degree. However miserable your view of the world around you is, things have never been better for most people and your doom-saying strikes me as nothing but paranoia and fearful propaganda used to excuse extreme, misguided actions that will only lead you to fight for what you wish to fight against.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Big Brother

Rozalia · March 28, 2016

Ignore the campaigns. Convince the people who listen and believe otherwise. Rid them of their fear of being ruined. It's all within reach.

Who cares about the parties? They are structures that can easily be circumvented. The power doesn't lay with political parties, it lays with the masses of regular people. No matter how many party members they have, they will never be able to outnumber the collective forces of the working masses, and multiculturalism can be a tool for more people than just the established parties.

I never said that nationalism was programmed into you, rather that you've been programmed to believe that the notions of division among national lines, nationalism and homogeneity as you would use them are tools against capitalism while they actually become tools in favor of capitalism. I'm no Communist, and if you knew true Communism (the kind that was not corrupted by Stalin's concept of "Socialism in one country"), you'd know that Communists seek and believe that world revolution is the only way to secure the world and lay the foundation for a Utopian Communist society. Communists are primarily internationalists, not nationalists. Marx wrote "workers of the world, unite" not workers of this or that country, but all of them. It's impossible for one nation to accomplish the goals set by Communism if there are still other nations in existence that still resist the ideology.

I don't expect everyone will be "freed" at once, I expect it will be a long and arduous process taking varying amounts of time for different people in different places. But I do believe that the sooner these people in all these different places move past their differences and begin working together, the better. And the more people who join this movement, across national borders, ethnicity, religion and whatever other divisions the capitalists will seek to use to divide them, the stronger and more efficient such a movement will be. People don't need to consider themselves to be internationalists to gain the intended global effect, but they do need to be able to work with foreign people from different cultures and they need to be able to understand internationalism, what it means and how it can be used in the struggle against global exploitation.

I understand that you want to break their tools but the methods you believe will reach this goal have the opposite effect, the effect you claim that I seek. What I actually seek is control of their tools in order to use them to strengthen the masses, the working class and weaken the capitalists. It would hardly be the first time this has been done. Before these tools can be dismantled, they must be spent in favor of the working class to the utmost degree. However miserable your view of the world around you is, things have never been better for most people and your doom-saying strikes me as nothing but paranoia and fearful propaganda used to excuse extreme, misguided actions that will only lead you to fight for what you wish to fight against.

No actually. Bombarding people from even a young age with something is not a guarantee of them swallowing it, in fact it can have the opposite effect, however that is not programming. They made me distrustful and that distrust allowed me to develop my viewpoints free from their pushed agendas.

I am aware that Communism is primarily internationalist that is why I said I don't understand why Communists believe in it when they should concentrate on a national level, being Internationalist and believing in many of the things their enemies do only muddies the message. Believing that Multiculturalism and such means everyone can work together is a nice thought but it's fantasy, people are divided among lines and they ultimately want to be divided. It may be lower, middle, or upper class, it may be on ethnic grounds, it may be culturally, it may be nationally. Look for example at how people care about attacks on Europe but have no attention for attacks in say Africa. In people's minds they are divided at several levels, one of which is the "west" and everybody else concept.

It is as I said. The enemy may not be ones in history, the ones that invade with large armies, that lock us up in prison camps by the scores, that execute us, but they have their own ways. Mass migration of people who don't integrate and breed in large numbers will only lead to terrible things, multiculturalism is their tool to make people tolerate what should be the intolerable until of course enough is enough and the killings begin. I have no time for some migrant from Somalia, no interest in fighting the good fight with him, what I care about is our own. Once we're safe we can start having luxury to worry about others.

fistofdoom · March 28, 2016

This is getting good, continue.

Andrezj Kolarov · March 28, 2016

You're right, capitalists rule the world by finding and exploiting divisions in the working class. And let's say you're right, that they do attempt to create porous borders and flood them with many peoples of different races, nationalities, etc. They can attempt to do this, they can attempt to pit workers against each other, native workers against immigrant workers and so on, but does that mean we shouldn't allow immigration? No, what it means is that we shouldn't fall for the bullshit capitalists feed us.

If the capitalists create the porous borders and if they try to pit people against each other and you allow yourselves to be duped into believing that immigrants are hurting you and your country, then you have failed. Then you have been duped. Then you are doing exactly what the capitalists want you to. What you should do is speak against those ideas, accept the immigrants as your fellow human beings, your fellow members of the working class and work together with them to topple the capitalists. That's how you foil their plans, not by rejecting people from other countries because they live their lives differently than what you do. By rejecting them, by being against immigration and the unification of different workers from different cultures and places, you are falling for their lies, you are letting them exploit the divisions in the working class, you are letting them weaken and divide the working class so that they can keep them in each strata opposed to each other.

If you really want the working masses to be united as a single compact, a coherent political force, behind a single political party, where all divisions have been defeated, so that they may seize power from the capitalists, then open the borders, tell the capitalists to !@#$ off, and work with your fellow workers to achieve that goal.

This is very idealist and very naive. Nationalities and cultures are real things, and peoples' deserve to have their own independent nations and to preserve their culture and language. You think every worker should become multilingual, do you? Having different groups in a single nation who all speak different languages, have different cultures, different religions, and so on, will result in the division of the working class in that nation. Cultural integration of such disparate groups is something that takes multiple generations, it is not something that happens magically overnight. Just because you say "the workers must unite" it doesn't mean hundreds or thousands of years of cultural, religious and national development is just going to disappear because you say so.

Closing the borders, not allowing immigration will only fit right into their plans and will only serve to keep the workers of the world divided, so that the capitalists can keep their power.

The world is not one big nation, and revolutions if they come about will come about individually in select nations. The crisis and "revolutionary situation" will come about globally of course because of how the international capitalist system operates. The workers in each country must organize according the unique cultural conditions of that country, apply a "one size fits all" approach will result in failure. Once socialist states are established in individual countries, those countries can begin contact and communication with each other. A multi-racial and multi-ethnic country is the dream of capitalists because they can play those different races and ethnicities off against each other, while a homogeneous country does not have those divisions and thus can more easily unite.

Honestly your post reads like some Trotskyite garbage about world revolution. Learn from history, how did the world's first socialist state come about?

Big Brother · March 28, 2016

No actually. Bombarding people from even a young age with something is not a guarantee of them swallowing it, in fact it can have the opposite effect, however that is not programming. They made me distrustful and that distrust allowed me to develop my viewpoints free from their pushed agendas.

I am aware that Communism is primarily internationalist that is why I said I don't understand why Communists believe in it when they should concentrate on a national level, being Internationalist and believing in many of the things their enemies do only muddies the message. Believing that Multiculturalism and such means everyone can work together is a nice thought but it's fantasy, people are divided among lines and they ultimately want to be divided. It may be lower, middle, or upper class, it may be on ethnic grounds, it may be culturally, it may be nationally. Look for example at how people care about attacks on Europe but have no attention for attacks in say Africa. In people's minds they are divided at several levels, one of which is the "west" and everybody else concept.

It is as I said. The enemy may not be ones in history, the ones that invade with large armies, that lock us up in prison camps by the scores, that execute us, but they have their own ways. Mass migration of people who don't integrate and breed in large numbers will only lead to terrible things, multiculturalism is their tool to make people tolerate what should be the intolerable until of course enough is enough and the killings begin. I have no time for some migrant from Somalia, no interest in fighting the good fight with him, what I care about is our own. Once we're safe we can start having luxury to worry about others.

People are divided among lines, but that doesn't mean they want to be divided. Pertaining to your example about attacks in Europe vs. attacks in Africa, it's only natural for people to care more about the things that are closer to them, the people and places that are closer to them, where they're more likely to have family, friends and other social bonds and memories. This doesn't mean people seek to be divided, they are perfectly capable of caring about attacks anywhere on the planet and a great many people actually do care and do what they can to help people in those places that are so remote from their own homes. If people's minds are divided at several levels, it's not because they chose it, it's because they were conditioned and taught it. Today, people across cultures, nationalities, religion and every other arbitrary division seek each other out and communicate with each other with ease. Their desire to socialize, to make bonds, to express themselves to others and to create relationships with others is stronger than any division that is supposed to keep them from doing so.

First of all, people should be allowed to have as many children they want regardless of which culture or which group of human beings they belong to. To restrict or limit the reproductive rights of any specific group of human beings is completely abhorrent. Second, I can agree that mass immigration without successful integration will lead to terrible things, but the solution is not disallowing immigration. Rather, the solution is successfully integrating migrants into their new countries and uniting them with the "native" working class. That's the best and most efficient thing you can do to use migration as a means to strengthen the struggle against capitalist exploitation. Multiculturalism doesn't mean you have to tolerate everything, you're free to speak out against whatever you want. However, it does mean that you have to accept that different people will live their lives in different ways, with different cultures as long as they abide by the rule of law. All you're telling me by saying that you have no time for some migrant from Somalia, that you have no interest in fighting the good fight with him and that what you care about is your own, is that you're sectarian and more interested in maintaining the divisions between people rather than accepting the fact that we are all human beings, we are all brothers and sisters of the human race, we are all the same species and that the struggle of the working class must look beyond the petty divisions that exist today to most efficiently fight against global capitalist exploitation.

This is very idealist and very naive. Nationalities and cultures are real things, and peoples' deserve to have their own independent nations and to preserve their culture and language. You think every worker should become multilingual, do you? Having different groups in a single nation who all speak different languages, have different cultures, different religions, and so on, will result in the division of the working class in that nation. Cultural integration of such disparate groups is something that takes multiple generations, it is not something that happens magically overnight. Just because you say "the workers must unite" it doesn't mean hundreds or thousands of years of cultural, religious and national development is just going to disappear because you say so.

The world is not one big nation, and revolutions if they come about will come about individually in select nations. The crisis and "revolutionary situation" will come about globally of course because of how the international capitalist system operates. The workers in each country must organize according the unique cultural conditions of that country, apply a "one size fits all" approach will result in failure. Once socialist states are established in individual countries, those countries can begin contact and communication with each other. A multi-racial and multi-ethnic country is the dream of capitalists because they can play those different races and ethnicities off against each other, while a homogeneous country does not have those divisions and thus can more easily unite.

Honestly your post reads like some Trotskyite garbage about world revolution. Learn from history, how did the world's first socialist state come about?

Yes, nationalities and cultures are indeed real things, and people deserve to have their own independent nations and to preserve their culture and language. You're absolutely right and I'm actually going to quote myself to show you just how much I agree with this part of your post:

Countries and sovereignty exist to safeguard different people from each other, to protect their different cultures, languages, histories, rights and so on from people who would seek to harm or take advantage of these things. Above I wrote I'm not a nationalist sympathizer. I wrote this because I am in fact a nationalist. I'm proud of my country, and I love my country above all others because we have managed to create a society that is peaceful, that has the highest human development index in the entire world, that allows people to prosper, allows people justice, allows people to live their life in peace and equality with each other. I recognize that other countries could accomplish these things as well and that we're not any better than anyone else or more capable than anyone else, but that doesn't mean I can't be proud of the good things we have accomplished. We, and every other nation have the right to self determination, to seek our own way as a nation, to define ourselves within our borders, to protect our own rights and what we believe is right, even if we don't all agree with each other. Our rightful sovereignty is what protects our rights, it's what allows us to create the society we seek and what allows us to live our lives however we desire. We struggled for centuries, hundreds upon hundreds of years to attain it and to create our own country and while it might mean nothing to you, I cannot think of a greater tragedy than losing it or abandoning it. I would fight in whatever way I can to keep it and I know many, many others would as well.

I never said that I think every worker should become multilingual, though knowing more than one language is certainly beneficial in today's day and age. You're allowing your pre-conceived notions and judgments to blind you from what is actually written. Having different groups in a single nation who all speak different languages, have different cultures, different religions, and so on, will not inherently result in the division of the working class in that nation. That's what the capitalists want to happen, but the working class, the masses do not have to let that become reality. Sure, cultural integration of disparate groups will take time, I never wrote that it was going to happen magically over night, that's you reading things that aren't there again. It will take time, it will be challenging, but it can be done and apart from being the right thing to do, it's one of the most efficient tools we have at our disposal in the struggle against capitalist exploitation. I don't necessarily agree that it would take several generations, I know several first generation immigrants and plenty of second generation immigrants who are perfectly integrated, who are just like the "native" citizens of my country, who have the same beliefs, ideals, wants and needs and who willingly participate in our society. See, in my country we are able to successfully integrate immigrants and make them productive citizens of our country, and if we're able to do this then other countries are as well, because we're not somehow any more capable or better than the citizens of any other country. Part of the worker's struggle against capitalism is uniting the workers of all countries and cultures under one banner and while it may take some time, it may be difficult, it should still be be done.

Yes, the world is not one big nation and sure, revolutions could very well come about in individually select nations. I agree that the workers in each country must organize according the unique cultural conditions of that country and that applying a "one size fits all" approach will result in failure. However, this doesn't mean that we should prevent workers from different countries from moving around, cooperating and working together. That would be counter-productive. There's no need for socialist states to already be established in order for the working classes of the world to look past their divisions and work together to bring down capitalist exploitation. They could begin contact and communication right now and it would be beneficial for them to do so. The capitalists cannot divide the working class if the working class does not accept or believe in the divisions. A multi-racial and multi-ethnic country can be a dream for capitalists, it can be a tool for them to use to divide the working class. But it can also be a tool for the working class to unite against capitalism in doing so they turn the capitalists' dream into their nightmare.

As for your silly statement about "Troyskyist garbage", that's the problem with Communists. You're incapable of looking past your ideological interpretations. You bicker and fight and argue while capitalism grows stronger around you and in doing so you fail at achieving all the goals you want to accomplish. By first socialist country, I assume you're referring to the Soviet Union, which was a failure. It was a complete, utter failure that ended up abandoning every ideal it once sought to uphold. It was corrupted by its authoritarian leaders, it ended up exploiting, oppressing and terrorizing the very class it was supposed to elevate. It failed at everything it originally tried to accomplish and before it crumbled to pieces it became a twisted monstrosity that perpetuated enormous amounts of human suffering. It failed, and if you think that you can use the Soviet Union as an example of successful workers struggle, you are sorely mistaken and history's lessons have eluded you. I'm not a Communist but if looking back at history has taught me anything, it's that Trotsky was right and Stalin was wrong.

Rozalia · March 29, 2016

People are divided among lines, but that doesn't mean they want to be divided. Pertaining to your example about attacks in Europe vs. attacks in Africa, it's only natural for people to care more about the things that are closer to them, the people and places that are closer to them, where they're more likely to have family, friends and other social bonds and memories. This doesn't mean people seek to be divided, they are perfectly capable of caring about attacks anywhere on the planet and a great many people actually do care and do what they can to help people in those places that are so remote from their own homes. If people's minds are divided at several levels, it's not because they chose it, it's because they were conditioned and taught it. Today, people across cultures, nationalities, religion and every other arbitrary division seek each other out and communicate with each other with ease. Their desire to socialize, to make bonds, to express themselves to others and to create relationships with others is stronger than any division that is supposed to keep them from doing so.

First of all, people should be allowed to have as many children they want regardless of which culture or which group of human beings they belong to. To restrict or limit the reproductive rights of any specific group of human beings is completely abhorrent. Second, I can agree that mass immigration without successful integration will lead to terrible things, but the solution is not disallowing immigration. Rather, the solution is successfully integrating migrants into their new countries and uniting them with the "native" working class. That's the best and most efficient thing you can do to use migration as a means to strengthen the struggle against capitalist exploitation. Multiculturalism doesn't mean you have to tolerate everything, you're free to speak out against whatever you want. However, it does mean that you have to accept that different people will live their lives in different ways, with different cultures as long as they abide by the rule of law. All you're telling me by saying that you have no time for some migrant from Somalia, that you have no interest in fighting the good fight with him and that what you care about is your own, is that you're sectarian and more interested in maintaining the divisions between people rather than accepting the fact that we are all human beings, we are all brothers and sisters of the human race, we are all the same species and that the struggle of the working class must look beyond the petty divisions that exist today to most efficiently fight against global capitalist exploitation.

No, they are divided just like I said. Distance isn't a factor otherwise they'd also not care about what happens in America which is further way then a lot of places they don't care about.

You just don't get it do you? Tell me how you integrate millions? Hostile millions who'd tell you to stick your workers united concept where the sun don't shine? The real world doesn't work like your fantasy does, organising by Nationalist lines is possible and has been done many times even in the worst of times. Yours has no hope for numerous reasons. I'd agree with your social bonds part except... ghettos, Multiculturalism, and mass immigration exists meaning you're again talking of a fantasy. I more than anyone want some of them to actually integrate but breaking Ghettos is evil for some reason, and wanting us to be one culturally is also another grand evil apparently.

Who mentioned any restrictions? I said that because people excuse it by saying "what is X number really" forgetting that said number even without immigration will have increased exponentially. The solution is clear, you don't let the situation get out of hand but now that it has we will have to fix it.

I'm going to tell you straight what I think of your view. It's no different than the cuckold Liberals. You adhere to an ideology that is mainly Internationalist and even though it is clear that what you want is a failure you feel you can't deny it without renouncing what you are politically. I personally feel such ideological stances are cowardly. Look at what is happening and tell me how it's a success. Has it ever been a success? The OP is of something from 1968, it was a failure then too. When it will it start working? Answer is it won't because it's a failure, it's a stance that denies reality, that humanity cannot be united in such a manner. People need a guiding culture, they need a guiding Nationalism, they need what legitimately makes them brothers and sisters. Saying some fool from Saudi Arabia is your brother isn't being progressive in your thinking, it's being foolish for he is not your brother and never will be.

Even if 10s of millions of them were laying half the country to waste you'd tell us everything was alright.

Also what you responded to Andrezj Kolarov is incorrect. Do you not understand that these masses of foreign workers hurt the poorest, as in the people you want them to unite with the most? For such hurt they in return despise said foreign workers. They want them out, not to work with them.

Oh and you really have no ground to stand on if we're talking about helping the enemy. You want internationalism, Multiculturalism, globalization, mass immigration. Such things are the real dividers in all this so the one dancing to the tune is yourself.

Big Brother · March 29, 2016

No, they are divided just like I said. Distance isn't a factor otherwise they'd also not care about what happens in America which is further way then a lot of places they don't care about.

You just don't get it do you? Tell me how you integrate millions? Hostile millions who'd tell you to stick your workers united concept where the sun don't shine? The real world doesn't work like your fantasy does, organising by Nationalist lines is possible and has been done many times even in the worst of times. Yours has no hope for numerous reasons. I'd agree with your social bonds part except... ghettos, Multiculturalism, and mass immigration exists meaning you're again talking of a fantasy. I more than anyone want some of them to actually integrate but breaking Ghettos is evil for some reason, and wanting us to be one culturally is also another grand evil apparently.

Who mentioned any restrictions? I said that because people excuse it by saying "what is X number really" forgetting that said number even without immigration will have increased exponentially. The solution is clear, you don't let the situation get out of hand but now that it has we will have to fix it.

I'm going to tell you straight what I think of your view. It's no different than the cuckold Liberals. You adhere to an ideology that is mainly Internationalist and even though it is clear that what you want is a failure you feel you can't deny it without renouncing what you are politically. I personally feel such ideological stances are cowardly. Look at what is happening and tell me how it's a success. Has it ever been a success? The OP is of something from 1968, it was a failure then too. When it will it start working? Answer is it won't because it's a failure, it's a stance that denies reality, that humanity cannot be united in such a manner. People need a guiding culture, they need a guiding Nationalism, they need what legitimately makes them brothers and sisters. Saying some fool from Saudi Arabia is your brother isn't being progressive in your thinking, it's being foolish for he is not your brother and never will be.

Even if 10s of millions of them were laying half the country to waste you'd tell us everything was alright.

Also what you responded to Andrezj Kolarov is incorrect. Do you not understand that these masses of foreign workers hurt the poorest, as in the people you want them to unite with the most? For such hurt they in return despise said foreign workers. They want them out, not to work with them.

Oh and you really have no ground to stand on if we're talking about helping the enemy. You want internationalism, Multiculturalism, globalization, mass immigration. Such things are the real dividers in all this so the one dancing to the tune is yourself.

They are divided yes. Do they want to be divided? No. Do you honestly believe every immigrant seeking to enter a country believes he or she will only be able to communicate with their own? That they won't have to associate with and have contact with the people living in the country they want to be a part of? Because that would be silly. You're right, distance isn't a factor, that's the whole point. How do you integrate millions? The same way states have been integrating millions upon millions of immigrants since people decided to move to other countries in the first place. Education, inclusion, openness. When you speak of "hostile millions" it's as if you see a horde of barbarians clamoring at the gates to crawl inside and wreck the powers that be. Nothing could be further from the truth. These aren't people coming to tear down our countries, they're people who seek the benefits our countries provide, who know that we way we do things allows people to prosper. They come from places where society hardly functions. What on Earth makes you think they have any interest in destroying the things they came to benefit from in the first place? The things they know are what makes living here good? It's illogical, it simply doesn't make any sense to think that they have any interest in doing so. You say that the real world doesn't work like "my fantasy" does, but it's you who have concocted wild, imaginary ideas of what these immigrants are like, what they want to do, what their values are and what they seek from coming to countries where they can have better lives. Organizing by nationalist lines is possible, and so is organizing by international lines. Why you are so eager to put all your faith into one and simply deny the other is beyond me. I don't need hope when I know that integration has worked and continues to work. Ghettos exist as a result of failing integration, and failing integration is not common to all the nations of the world. Multiculturalism and mass immigration certainly do exist, but not as the twisted concepts your mind has presented to itself. Breaking ghettos is all well and good as long as you break them through integration. Wanting to be culturally "one" isn't evil and I never said it was. If you can successfully integrate all these new people into your own culture, that's fine, and you could work towards doing so. However, we live in pluralistic societies in a global age and as much you wish you could turn back time to when we had uniform, homogeneous cultures, all separated from each other by national borders, it would be impossible to do so without technologically regressing. This is the world we live in now, adapt or perish.

I don't care what your straight opinion of my view is. Your perspective is flawed and so everything your mind interprets is bound to be rampant with errors as well. My views on immigration are in no way dependent on the rest of my political views. I'm a statist with socialist leanings and I could just as easily be a statist with socialist leanings opposed to immigration. Cowardly? Please, don't make me laugh. You're the one who's so afraid of all these people and what they might do to your precious little homogeneous fantasy. The OP strikes me as a fool. Immigration and integration has been a success in many countries all over the world and continues to succeed to this day. Your paranoia, your misconceptions and delusions have let you believe it's okay to deny every proof that opposes your view. If you really sought the truth of these things, you wouldn't let the arrogance of subjectivity lead you to believe falsehoods. People don't need a guiding culture, they don't need guiding nationalism. Those are archaic, borderline fascist thoughts. What people need are the opportunities to excel, to learn and develop themselves as rational human beings so that they may guide themselves. People have the right to choose their own way, to lead their own lives and to choose their own values. Would you have everyone conform to the ideas and concepts a particular culture or brand of nationalism imposes on them? That's completely unjust, it goes against so many of the rights that our free countries seek to uphold. You would let your fear of these people drive you to ruin the country and culture you want to protect. What legitimately makes us all brothers and sisters is that we are all human beings. As soon as you understand what that means, that is enough. No one is going to lay the country to waste, that's just a delusion with no basis in the reality of immigration. These people want to escape from their countries that have been laid to waste, it doesn't make sense that they would want the same to happen again.

Do you not understand that the only reason any of these "foreign workers" supposedly hurt the poorest is because your particular country, in this small fraction of the entirety of human history, fails to integrate them? Fails to fight poverty? Are you not aware that capitalism is what creates the poor and increases the gap between the rich and the wealthy? You're letting them trick you into blaming immigrants when they are the ones to blame. People like you, with your misguided delusions are who "want them out". But you do not speak for everyone, not all people suffer from the same chronic misconceptions and believe it or not, there are actually people who do want to work with their new countrymen for the progress of all. To deny this, to pretend that everyone in your country thinks the way you do is plain ignorance. Multiculturalism, globalization, mass immigration are not things that inherently divide people and if you truly believe that you have fundamentally misunderstood the concepts in question. If you let the capitalists use them as dividers, they will divide people but you don't have to let them use them like that. You don't have to let them use these concepts in a dividing manner. It's up to you, the rest of the working class, and everyone else who has an interest in fighting against the capitalists to make sure that these concepts are not used that way, that they are used to strengthen the cause, rather than divide it. By subscribing to your point of view, you are only doing exactly what they want you to, abandoning hope, abandoning reason and letting them cloud your judgment to the point where you will do their bidding for them all the while believing you are doing it to fight them.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Big Brother

Rozalia · March 29, 2016

They are divided yes. Do they want to be divided? No. Do you honestly believe every immigrant seeking to enter a country believes he or she will only be able to communicate with their own? That they won't have to associate with and have contact with the people living in the country they want to be a part of? Because that would be silly. You're right, distance isn't a factor, that's the whole point. How do you integrate millions? The same way states have been integrating millions upon millions of immigrants since people decided to move to other countries in the first place. Education, inclusion, openness. When you speak of "hostile millions" it's as if you see a horde of barbarians clamoring at the gates to crawl inside and wreck the powers that be. Nothing could be further from the truth. These aren't people coming to tear down our countries, they're people who seek the benefits our countries provide, who know that we way we do things allows people to prosper. They come from places where society hardly functions. What on Earth makes you think they have any interest in destroying the things they came to benefit from in the first place? The things they know are what makes living here good? It's illogical, it simply doesn't make any sense to think that they have any interest in doing so. You say that the real world doesn't work like "my fantasy" does, but it's you who have concocted wild, imaginary ideas of what these immigrants are like, what they want to do, what their values are and what they seek from coming to countries where they can have better lives. Organizing by nationalist lines is possible, and so is organizing by international lines. Why you are so eager to put all your faith into one and simply deny the other is beyond me. I don't need hope when I know that integration has worked and continues to work. Ghettos exist as a result of failing integration, and failing integration is not common to all the nations of the world. Multiculturalism and mass immigration certainly do exist, but not as the twisted concepts your mind has presented to itself. Breaking ghettos is all well and good as long as you break them through integration. Wanting to be culturally "one" isn't evil and I never said it was. If you can successfully integrate all these new people into your own culture, that's fine, and you could work towards doing so. However, we live in pluralistic societies in a global age and as much you wish you could turn back time to when we had uniform, homogeneous cultures, all separated from each other by national borders, it would be impossible to do so without technologically regressing. This is the world we live in now, adapt or perish.

I don't care what your straight opinion of my view is. Your perspective is flawed and so everything your mind interprets is bound to be rampant with errors as well. My views on immigration are in no way dependent on the rest of my political views. I'm a statist with socialist leanings and I could just as easily be a statist with socialist leanings opposed to immigration. Cowardly? Please, don't make me laugh. You're the one who's so afraid of all these people and what they might do to your precious little homogeneous fantasy. The OP strikes me as a fool. Immigration and integration has been a success in many countries all over the world and continues to succeed to this day. Your paranoia, your misconceptions and delusions have let you believe it's okay to deny every proof that opposes your view. If you really sought the truth of these things, you wouldn't let the arrogance of subjectivity lead you to believe falsehoods. People don't need a guiding culture, they don't need guiding nationalism. Those are archaic, borderline fascist thoughts. What people need are the opportunities to excel, to learn and develop themselves as rational human beings so that they may guide themselves. People have the right to choose their own way, to lead their own lives and to choose their own values. Would you have everyone conform to the ideas and concepts a particular culture or brand of nationalism imposes on them? That's completely unjust, it goes against so many of the rights that our free countries seek to uphold. You would let your fear of these people drive you to ruin the country and culture you want to protect. What legitimately makes us all brothers and sisters is that we are all human beings. As soon as you understand what that means, that is enough. No one is going to lay the country to waste, that's just a delusion with no basis in the reality of immigration. These people want to escape from their countries that have been laid to waste, it doesn't make sense that they would want the same to happen again.

Do you not understand that the only reason any of these "foreign workers" supposedly hurt the poorest is because your particular country, in this small fraction of the entirety of human history, fails to integrate them? Fails to fight poverty? Are you not aware that capitalism is what creates the poor and increases the gap between the rich and the wealthy? You're letting them trick you into blaming immigrants when they are the ones to blame. People like you, with your misguided delusions are who "want them out". But you do not speak for everyone, not all people suffer from the same chronic misconceptions and believe it or not, there are actually people who do want to work with their new countrymen for the progress of all. To deny this, to pretend that everyone in your country thinks the way you do is plain ignorance. Multiculturalism, globalization, mass immigration are not things that inherently divide people and if you truly believe that you have fundamentally misunderstood the concepts in question. If you let the capitalists use them as dividers, they will divide people but you don't have to let them use them like that. You don't have to let them use these concepts in a dividing manner. It's up to you, the rest of the working class, and everyone else who has an interest in fighting against the capitalists to make sure that these concepts are not used that way, that they are used to strengthen the cause, rather than divide it. By subscribing to your point of view, you are only doing exactly what they want you to, abandoning hope, abandoning reason and letting them cloud your judgment to the point where you will do their bidding for them all the while believing you are doing it to fight them.

You're not understanding what I'm telling you. Integrating millions is possible yes, you do it over a period of time (their coming in), you don't tolerate the intolerable. However instead of having a plan they've just brought people in (many decades back). Such a scenario makes it much harder.

What did I tell you? They are tools, they don't know that it's what they're doing but it is. Like yourself for example, you don't know you only help the people you hate but you do.

The world changed, and changed, and changed... it can change again. You say adapt or perish and I agree. If we do not adapt back to Nationalism, to Homogeneity, to good bloody sense we will indeed perish.

What was in the OP was correct, integration has failed for mass immigration and multiculturalism sabotage the process. It even hits back in 1968 that the future would have the ridiculous political correctness where people throw around words like Racist for refusing to tolerate the intolerable.

It's not courage to blow your brains out. Additionally I see the refugees keep coming up, just what I mean. It's like those people who defend illegal immigrants and throw racist at those who want to enforce the law, ridiculous. What you fail to understand, and this is a very basic point, is that said people do not come with some grand design to ruin a country, no. However regardless of their ignorance they do, not alone, but due to others they do in fact ruin a country. Then they aren't intergrare, neither are their children, then their children, and things get worse and worse. They didn't know about it, they didn't intend it, but they did it.

What are you on about? I've told you several times they ain't integrated on purpose and your internationalism, globalism, and multiculturalism protects them from integration. Instead of standing back and thinking perhaps we could close off those elements to get a handle on things, you instead think turning the valve the other way will somehow work.

I'm the one who really wants intergration, you on the other hand stand on the side of no integration if you know it or not.

Don't say such things. There are citizens and foreigners, by definition citizenship is discrimination but there is nothing wrong with that. I support helping all citizens, to stop them being victims of capitalism, however I have no time for everybody else for the world. Currently we cannot even help our own and you think we should think in terms of helping everybody? Doesn't work like that.

Hereno · March 30, 2016

it's really not that hard to get along with spanish-speaking people, although i can see why a lot of people have trouble

most of you can't even get along with people who are just like you and are, to put it frankly, too dumb to get along with immigrants

but i really don't care. tolerance and whatnot are good things to have and the more you educate people about other people, the less you have to do it later

eventually we will have workplaces full of people of all sorts of colors and they'll all get along and the "plans" of the "evil capitalists" who by and large are all anti-immigrant racist !@#$ themselves will be "foiled"

such is reality in a world where "nations" are not groups of millions of people who all believe the same thing and do the exact same things the exact same ways, as though we can actually be reduced to that

nationalism has almost always included class collaboration if only as a temporary tactic to get "our own bourgeoisie" ruling us, as though it matters to me whether or not it's a white guy or a black guy or a brown guy who is !@#$ing me over

Rozalia · March 30, 2016

it's really not that hard to get along with spanish-speaking people, although i can see why a lot of people have trouble

most of you can't even get along with people who are just like you and are, to put it frankly, too dumb to get along with immigrants

but i really don't care. tolerance and whatnot are good things to have and the more you educate people about other people, the less you have to do it later

eventually we will have workplaces full of people of all sorts of colors and they'll all get along and the "plans" of the "evil capitalists" who by and large are all anti-immigrant racist !@#$ themselves will be "foiled"

such is reality in a world where "nations" are not groups of millions of people who all believe the same thing and do the exact same things the exact same ways, as though we can actually be reduced to that

nationalism has almost always included class collaboration if only as a temporary tactic to get "our own bourgeoisie" ruling us, as though it matters to me whether or not it's a white guy or a black guy or a brown guy who is !@#$ me over

You put it all in a very one sided narrative. When you tolerate the intolerable they see that it is acceptable and will only worsen, not improve. Make the extreme normal and you get something far worse and all that.

I never said the evil capitalists bit, Big Brother did that. While I'm all for bring the Capitalists down a peg or two, outright destroying them isn't something I feel is exactly required.

Nothing wrong with that as long as they are integrated and indistinguishable from me save some colour in some places.

Even in the narrative where it's all about who is stamping on you, I'd rather it be someone I know plainly then some faceless nebulous globalist. There are significant differences and a obvious lightening rod is useful.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Rozalia

Hereno · March 30, 2016

You put it all in a very one sided narrative. When you tolerate the intolerable they see that it is acceptable and will only worsen, not improve. Make the extreme normal and you get something far worse and all that.

I never said the evil capitalists bit, Big Brother did that. While I'm all for bring the Capitalists down a peg or two, outright destroying them isn't something I feel is exactly required.

Nothing wrong with that as long as they are integrated and indistinguishable from me save some colour in some places.

Even in the narrative where it's all about who is stamping on you, I'd rather it be someone I know plainly then some faceless nebulous globalist. There are significant differences and a obvious lightening rod is useful.

you don't get to know the capitalists either way. they are not like us. they don't live like us. they don't think like us. and they do not give a shit about us. what comfort do you get from knowing they look a bit more like you when you won't ever get to see them?

i don't see immigrants as intolerable, and a lot of our stereotypes about immigrants can easily be explained by looking at the economic factor. lots of indian and asian doctors? okay well who do you think there has the ability to move to america except the upper classes of those countries? you don't hate people of that race or religion, you hate their snooty !@#$s who differ from you most based on class. and the spanish speaking people? well, the doctors and lawyers in mexico aren't about to go jump a border fence and face prison time just to move to america. again, the difference is class.

Rozalia · March 30, 2016

you don't get to know the capitalists either way. they are not like us. they don't live like us. they don't think like us. and they do not give a shit about us. what comfort do you get from knowing they look a bit more like you when you won't ever get to see them?

i don't see immigrants as intolerable, and a lot of our stereotypes about immigrants can easily be explained by looking at the economic factor. lots of indian and asian doctors? okay well who do you think there has the ability to move to america except the upper classes of those countries? you don't hate people of that race or religion, you hate their snooty !@#$s who differ from you most based on class. and the spanish speaking people? well, the doctors and lawyers in mexico aren't about to go jump a border fence and face prison time just to move to america. again, the difference is class.

Like I told you I don't believe in that narrative but even if true there are advantages to having your symbol of oppression having a face.

You know what I'm referring on there, pretty obvious. Those if you do talk Mexicans I do find it ridiculous that illegals are actually defended, criminals are defended and those who want to enforce a very common sense law are attacked. Though America is a country in a anti police craze so attacking those who want to enforce the law is expected I suppose.

I know immigrants who have integrated great, it's the types who peddle horrible stuff and get defended if you want to put an end to it. Also people who defend ghettos are being bad people too, it's bad for everybody involved except I suppose those Ivory Tower Liberals who want all of them concentrated in certain areas then near them. I think long term in what high levels of immigration with pitiful levels of integration means, it's easy to point to the short term and say everything is fine.

Hereno · March 30, 2016

Like I told you I don't believe in that narrative but even if true there are advantages to having your symbol of oppression having a face.

You know what I'm referring on there, pretty obvious. Those if you do talk Mexicans I do find it ridiculous that illegals are actually defended, criminals are defended and those who want to enforce a very common sense law are attacked. Though America is a country in a anti police craze so attacking those who want to enforce the law is expected I suppose.

I know immigrants who have integrated great, it's the types who peddle horrible stuff and get defended if you want to put an end to it. Also people who defend ghettos are being bad people too, it's bad for everybody involved except I suppose those Ivory Tower Liberals who want all of them concentrated in certain areas then near them. I think long term in what high levels of immigration with pitiful levels of integration means, it's easy to point to the short term and say everything is fine.

if i immigrated to america from some other country and was in every other way still exactly the same person i am you'd be trying to get rid of me

actually, in the french revolution, the towns that were most anti-revolution were the ones who were the poorest and as a result tended to still live with/see their lords and members of the local clergy on a daily basis. dehumanization of people you don't see every day is a lot easier - exposure to people, while it can breed resentment, also breeds understanding and empathy

Rivers of Blood

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Big Brother

Andrezj Kolarov

Big Brother

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Recently Browsing 0 members

Important Information