re: Who flooded Europe with muslims and why?

quote:

---

The far left wants rampant migration from the third world to create a sub-class to help with their subversive revolution.

---

Academics will disagree with you on this, because it's what they've been conditioned to do, and it's something they've never been exposed to in the propaganda mills, so it couldn't possibly be authentic.

What you've mentioned can be traced back to the 1917 bunch that wrecked Russia, and the later Gramsci who spoke glowingly of the "new proletariat" since the original proletariat had been jettisoned by the Bolsheviks because they had lost their verve for the Revolution when they realized that they had been regarded and used as little more than cannon fodder for it.

Gramsci's "new proletariat" was to be made up of everything from the disgruntled, to dysfunctional criminals from the prisons, to all the Third Worlders they could get and program for their own ends.

All of which can be seen in his Prison Notebooks.

But he wasn't alone with this concept. Trotsky himself voiced similar sympathies, and both were contemporaries of each other for a time in their lives.

This is from The Historical Roots of Political Correctness by Raymond V. Raehne:

By its very nature, Frankfurt School Critical Theory amounted to a grand scheme for the inversion of the intrinsic worth of white heterosexual males that opened the intellectual door to the racial and sexual antagonisms of the Trotskyites, Herbert Marcuse and Betty Friedan.

The expressed views of Leon Trotsky that were adopted by his Fourth International were especially revealing.

Trotsky had denounced prejudiced white workers in scathing and bitter terms. He followed this with the assertion that due to the oppression of the blacks they could become the most revolutionary element of the population and furnish the vanguard of the revolution.

Trotsky demanded that the white workers assist the blacks in this revolution.

Most of the young student leaders of the 1960's counterculture revolution to a large extent followed the dictates of Leon Trotsky by attempting to elevate black revolutionaries to positions of leadership.

Since the counterculture revolution of the 1960's was an attempt to invert the prevailing culture as the very name implies, acceptance of an inversion of white and black roles seemed logical to the student revolutionaries.

These radical Marxists also followed Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt School who became the admired philosopher on the campuses of American colleges and universities in the 1960's with his advocacy of the women's and black revolutions.

As a Marxist revolutionary alumni of the Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse became a key practitioner of revolutionary theory in America.

In 1947, he argued the case for a Soviet republic and welcomed anarchy, disintegration, and catastrophe to bring about revolutionary change.

He preached the "Great Refusal" sexual liberation and the merits of the feminist and black revolutions. His primary thesis was that revolutionaries such as university students, ghetto blacks, the alienated and the asocial, and the Third World could take the place of the proletariat.

In his book An Essay on Liberation. Herbert Marcuse proclaimed his aim of a radical transvaluation of values; the relaxation of taboo; cultural subversion; critical theory; and a linguistic rebellion that amounts to a methodical reversal of meaning. As for racial conflict, Marcuse wrote that it is true that the white man is guilty and that the black population appears as the most natural force of rebellion. The similarity to Leon Trotsky's mindset should be noted.

None of the above will ever be seen by students in the classrooms of the propaganda mills. Even though it was all acted out to a "t" by the '60's crowd in the universities, especially at Berkeley, to the extent that no one could challenge that it was very real and happening on the campuses.

European realities are not American realities. Spend more than a tourist sojourn in Western Europe and you'll understand. Read what is going on from real European sources....not American or Brussels based . Germany especially had a real manpower deficit after WWII. We killed a lot of Germans as did the Russians. After the war, the manpower needed to rebuild Germany required more people of working age than was available in Germany, so W.Germany advertised itself in Turkey which had a lot of working aged males. The rebuild took years and the Turks that came stayed, paid taxes and began to "integrate". The Turks were generally secular.....still are but a lower class minority.

In France it was different due to the French overseas empire. There had been a sizeable Algerian minority in the South since before WwII mostly around Marseilles and in and around the Riviera. They did all the stuff behind the scenes. After the war immigration kicked up due to need but also due to Civil War in Algeria which was particularly violent. You should read A Savage War for Peace and watch the Battle of Algiers to get an idea. The French had a lot of guilt associated with what they did in Algeria so they let in way too many of their colonial subjects and given Algeria's proximity, there were a lot that just started showing up especially in the late to mid 70s. The French at the time did not care, but Mitterand's government was very liberal about letting them in whereas Giscard d'Estaing before him had put serious controls on immigration. Bad policies compounded by even more stupid policies because the French were running an annual unemployment rate of about 10%....then factor in the Senegalese and people from Cameroon. The French owed the Senegalese because of their sacrifices in both World Wars on behalf of Metropolitan France.

So much of France's problems are self made and compounded by idiots running the EU in Brussels . Legally the French had little choice because of treaty obligations with the EU.

If you want to talk about a real f'd up situation look at Belgium

So many of the problems have their roots in the 50s and 60s because of economic necessity. Half of Europe was not free to move beyond the Slovenian frontier until after 1991. The French in particular would rather Poles and Romanians as immigrants but realities prevented that

The US did not have to rebuild after WWII, in fact the US comes out of the war in a good economic position. GIs come home to a prosperous land and proceed to make babies. Europe struggled to recover with a depleted male population....like I said European realities are NOT American realities

I thought I was gonna get through the entire thread before somebody posted the correct answer.

America did the exact same thing with the 1965 immigration act. If it wasn’t for that then the country would be 80% white and the rest Hispanic and black. A tiny amount of Asians and middle easterners

quote:

---

I thought I was gonna get through the entire thread before somebody posted the correct answer.

---

New here?

I appreciate the things you have posted on this thread. Where do you think trump fits in to all of this?

quote:

---

This is the biggest lie ever told. You are being gaslighted to believe we need a bunch of low iq, uneducated, unskilled people here.

---

Well it does seem now to be the ongoing narrative for the obvious mistakes of Western Europe.

Another big lie conjured up as a feeble excuse for why Western Europe invited into its midst that malignancy.

It's obviously been pushed in the propaganda mills as a weak rationalization for such a potentially deadly mistake.

What ever cadre of leaders in addition to Blair in Britain, Merkel in Germany, and France, Sweden and the others who did this, by necessity they have to fall into any of the following categories or combinations thereof:

- those who didn't know anything about Muslims and their 1400 plus year history; (the feeblest of excuses)

- or they did know but were so soaked and wallowing in their own pandering liberalism that it didn't matter;

- or that they all would have had to be absolutely certifiably mad to foist something like that on western citizens - particularly on their women and children.

Yes, it is a crock using as an excuse the need for unskilled labor as the sole "reason" for that huge mistake.

Anyone believe that the "need for unskilled labor" was the basis for Blair's statement made in an outdoor setting before his media that "when it comes to diversity and multi-culturalism, Britain is a model for the world," practically while the bombs were going off behind him in the Metro.

To Blair it was strictly and only a social statement - tantamount to "look at us how egalitarian we are."

Now London has a mayor who is a blood relative of a terrorist.

For those pushing this "unskilled labor canard," as goes the other end of the work spectrum regarding skilled labor and expertise, here's the final question:

If any of you were starting up an Airline, would you hire an all-Muslim team of pilots and especially an all-Muslim maintenance crew. A very basic inquiry requiring a very easy answer.

It all makes as much sense as the Israelis charitably doling out citizenship to muslims and bringing them into their midst.

Must be a subconscious, self-destructive attitude that festers within them - strictly lemming-esque. Or is it just basically "liberalism at any price."

Nobody in their right mind would roll the dice to that extent and consciously jeopardize so many of their own countrymen.

We're now so taken up with the Leftist pandering syndrome that the history revisionists are back at it now attempting to convince whoever will listen that Black Jack Pershing really didn't use such measures to control the Muslims in the Philippines.

For those who might whine that "they didn't know about them," there was a Brit who knew and offered this impression:

"Muslims, no more retrograde society exists in the world."

~ Winston Churchill

quote:

---

Google Angela Merkel

---

I was walking around downtown Frankfurt, Germany recently and LITERALLY every 7 out of 10 persons I passed were Muslim.

I knew right then and there that I was a racist, that I would probably die a racist, and there wasn't a damn thing I could do about it.

Nothing need be countered for a legitimate explanation of how different groups came to light in countries that were alien to them through conquest and colonizing, and bad choices.

That is all after the fact. Only interested in the here and now and the untenable position these countries built for themselves. The relevant question is where do we go from here.

But Blair has used an already existing fact to make it worse by attempting to convince somebody that his country somehow has benefitted from it, and that they need more of it.

Strictly a desperate attempt at self-serving rationalizing for something he and others across Europe now know that the die is cast on and will never be reversed.

It is his attitude and that of others that say to all "now that we can't do anything about, just accept it.

Very near a Stockholm situation for Europe now.

Oh, and not at all preoccupied with "muh globalism."

Even though living in a city that's presently exercising a weak attempt at realizing Agenda 21/30 urban planning theories.

All they got for their efforts was the Hard Rock disaster.