Thread: Immigration being used to pave the way for one-world government

In the world at this period of time, there are unprecedented levels of immigration, and most of this immigration is into the economically and militarily influential Western countries: the USA, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe.

Nationalism is one of the strongest hindrances to one-world government. It led to the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires, and was one of the main reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Destroying the concept of national identity cannot be done within a single lifetime. But the socialist/communist idealists envission a future beyond their lifetimes. This was clear under the Soviet Union, where communism was in some ways like a religion. The actions of the individual in support of the state were to achieve a paradise- not for the individual himself, but for future generations in the world.

If the national identities of the influential Western nations are destroyed, these nations can fall under a single government, and the rest of the world will fall under its influence also. The great irony is that the Russian Federation, formerly the center of the Soviet Union, now stands in opposition to this unification. This is likely one of the reasons that the Russian government is the target of so much criticism from the Western media. Russia is only a shadow of its former power and world dominance, but it is the only nation left of any significant influence capable of standing in opposition. We have seen how much effort the USA has made to form allies with the other former Soviet Republics surrounding Russia. Special trade privilleges are granted, and unusual efforts are made to more closely integrate their economies with that of the USA. Human rights and democracy are apparently only secondary considerations. Most of these former Soviet Republics have much more repressive governments than Russia, yet the Russian Federation itself is the main target of Western criticism. The West aims to weaken the economic influence of Russia, by building oil and natural gas pipelines to bring gas out of the former central asian republics, bypassing the pipelines already in place that go through Russia. The importance of natural gas will soon increase to great importance, much like that of oil today. Already, many vehicles are beginning to run on natural gas. Russia has vast stores of natural gas laying under its Siberian tundra, more than any other nation.

Throughout Europe and North America immigration is under discussion, be it Mexicans crossing the border illegally into the US, immigration 'amnesties' or the fears that Britain and other Western European nations will be flooded with people looking for work from the Eastern European countries about to be absorbed into the European Union and thus allowed free movement across former borders.

The debate, as usual, and by design, has been polarised into a Left-Right slanging match. If you challenge the level of immigration you are branded a racist, for example. But this is not about what is good or otherwise for a country or the immigrants themselves.

This appears to be a long-term plan to destroy the nation state. Whether people support the nation state structure or not is another debate.
The nation state structure, and the history, culture and sense of uniqueness that goes with it, are road blocks to the absorption of nations into a single centralised world state, under the same government, army and economic system.

To break down resistance to this global state, the sense of unique national identity and culture would first need to be destroyed. The concept of 'nation' would eventually be lost throught the creation of 'multicultural' societies. That does not necessarily mean that 'multicultural' societies are wrong - not at all - only that there is an another parallel agenda.

The expansion of the European Union is, in part, designed to do this.

The danger is that a single governing body could potentially be granted dictatorial powers on the pretext of world peace and global equality. This would threaten freedom and personal liberties.

Having lived in a communist USSR, I can tell you with confidence that American media is no less controlled by socialist scum then it was controlled there - I recognize this filth, even though they pretend to be anti liberals .
http://www.pvsi.net/

20-minute documentary: http://www.politicallyincorrect.me.uk/pcorigins.htm

In 1923, the Frankfurt School in Germany contemplated strategies to help communism spread beyond just Russia.

This is what they recommended:
1. the creation of racism offences
2. continual change to create confusion
3 .the teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. the undermining of schools and teachers' authority
5. huge immigration to destroy national identity
6. the promotion of excessive drinking
7. emptying the churches
8. an unreliable legal system with bias against the victim of crime
9. dependency on the state or state benefits
10. control and dumbing down of media
11. encouraging the breakdown of the family

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

20-minute documentary: http://www.politicallyincorrect.me.uk/pcorigins.htm

In 1923, the Frankfurt School in Germany contemplated strategies to help communism spread beyond just Russia.

This is what they recommended:
1. the creation of racism offences
3 .the teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. the undermining of schools and teachers' authority
5. huge immigration to destroy national identity
6. the promotion of excessive drinking
7. emptying the churches
8. an unreliable legal system with bias against the victim of crime
9. dependency on the state or state benefits
10. control and dumbing down of media
11. encouraging the breakdown of the family

Link- atlas Shrugs I did watch some of it. It is simply a propaganda film trying to present a conspiracy theory for 'Political Correctness'. The thinkers in the Frankfurt school thought independently. Hence it is possible to criticise some a lot and agree with others a lot. Eric Fromm never developed a political theory but you would think from your link that was his interest. Instead he was one of the 20th C's best psychoanalysts.

In addition the creation of the link between psychoanalysis and political philosophy which developed in the Frankfurt School was a desire to develop an understanding of how the situation which arose in Nazi Germany could ever have been psychologically possible and to develop ways to stop such a thing happening again.

Originally Posted by alexa

how the situation which arose in Nazi Germany could ever have been psychologically possible and to develop ways to stop such a thing happening again.

The Nazis were not really that bad. Sure there were a few horrible attrocities, but it was not on the large scale that many would have us believe. Millions of people died of starvation, both Jews and free civilians in Germany and Britain. France, Britain, Russia, Norway, and even the United States* committed their own attrocities which are not often talked about. The Nazis — and actually the whole german people — were initially villified after the start of the war, for war time propaganda purposes. Then the leftists and progressives continued this villification in later years for political and ideological purposes. Casting the Nazis as "pure evil" was convenient to advance their social objectives— particularly racial equality.

Attacking the Nazis was also an indirect way to attack patriotism and nationalism. The leftists have never liked Nationalists, even from the very beginning. There was a great civil war in China between the Nationalists and the Communists, for example. The very word "racism" was originally invented by a Marxist to slander Slavic Nationalists:

"Slavophilism, the messianism of backwardness, has based its philosophy upon the assumption that the Russian people and their church are democratic through and through, whereas official Russia is a German bureaucracy imposed upon them by Peter the Great. Mark remarked upon this theme: "In the same way the Teutonic jackasses blamed the despotism of Frederick the Second upon the French, as though backward slaves were not always in need of civilised slaves to train them." This brief comment completely finishes off not only the old philosophy of the Slavophiles, but also the latest revelations of the racists."
— Leon Trotsky

(the actual word used was расистов, or in russian "racistov" )

It is clear from the rest of Trotsky's work that he was no better than the Nazis, perhaps worse:

"We have to run a hot iron down the spine of the Ukrainian kulaks - that will create a good working environment."

"As for us, we were never concerned with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle about the ‘sacredness of human life’. "

"In not more than a month’s time terror will assume very violent forms, after the example of the great French Revolution; the guillotine... will be ready for our enemies... that remarkable invention of the French Revolution which makes man shorter by a head."

*The attrocities of the United States against the German people were not on any lesser scale than the Nazi's mistreatment of the Jews:
the OTHER holocaust
But students in the Western countries are only taught about the Jews that died, nothing is ever mentioned about the Germans.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

The Nazis were not really that bad. Sure there were a few horrible attrocities, but it was not on the large scale that many would have us believe. Millions of people died of starvation, both Jews free civilians in Germany and Britain. France, Britain, Russia, Norway, and even the United States* committed their own attrocities which are not often talked about. The Nazis — and actually the whole german people — were initially villified after the start of the war, for war time propaganda purposes. Then the leftists and progressives continued this villification in later years for political and ideological purposes. Casting the Nazis as "pure evil" was convenient to advance their social objectives— particularly racial equality.

At least people can now see you in your true light -- assuming they had not picked up on it already .
You effectively qualify as a Holocaust Denier -- an offence punishable by prison here .
I would like to believe that you were banned Sine Die and the appropriate authorities informed , if possible .
But that is a personal opinion which I suspect all right and decent minded people would approve of .But naturally I can only speak for myself .


"The Nazis were not really that bad. Sure there were a few horrible attrocities, but it was not on the large scale that many would have us believe."---- I never thought I would see that in print publicly . Amazing and horrific .

Marx had hoped that the “workers of the world” would unite. When the First World War broke out the workers of the world did not unite, instead they united with their respective countries and fought eachother. The Marxists had an enormous disillusionment when the French, German, and British soldiers all fought for their respective nations. Workers were more loyal to their respective countries, churches, and cultural values than they were to their counterparts in other countries. One Marxist, Antonia Gramsci wrote that they first had to change the culture of society, change the way people thought, and that the workers of the world would unite only “after the long march is over”. The sense of nation and ones own country was stumbling block. Nationalism and religion was too resistant to Marxism, so first had to be destroyed. This would be accomplished through educational institutions and newspapers.

Originally Posted by raymondo

You effectively qualify as a Holocaust Denier.

The Jews should not be granted any special monopoly on the word "Holocaust". If I thought the mistreatment by the germans was actually even half as bad as it is frequently described in western school books and depicted in popular films, I would not be making these types of statements. The main form of oppression during that time was economic. By "mistreatment", I generally mean they were inadequately fed— not unlike the masses of all the other people during that time. Why do the school textbooks say so little about the millions that died of starvation in Britain, the USA, and Russia? 7.5 million people died in the Chinese civil war between the Nationalists and the Communists.

7.5 million people died in the Chinese civil war between the Nationalists and the Communists.

What exactly is a "Holocaust denier"? Do I deny certain representations of history taught in many schools? Yes. Do I deny that depictions of the Holocaust shown in many films are completely biased against the nazis and misleading? Yes. Do I deny many Jews died from mistreatment while being held in internment camps? No. Labour is just trying to legislate away opinions they do not agree with. What better way than to enforce by law your own version of history, than use that view of history for your own political advantage, again and again! "Should we be concerned about all the migration affecting the political balance of power and changing the ethnic composition of Britain? No! That would be racist and evil — just like the Nazis!"

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

The Nazis were not really that bad. Sure there were a few horrible attrocities, but it was not on the large scale that many would have us believe.

Ha ha, well I should have left in the part where I said no doubt you will believe it was a holohoax. It is interesting that WN'S or Nat socialist are becoming confident enough to come on mainstream forums to present their views.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

Millions of people died of starvation, both Jews and free civilians in Germany and Britain.

There was a deliberate policy in Germany of inhumanity to minorities, that is homosexuals, Roma, Poles, Jews, Jehovah Witnesses, mental problems and opposing political views. In Germany murder was the response to difference!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

France, Britain, Russia, Norway, and even the United States* committed their own attrocities which are not often talked about.

I agree which is why a psychology of everything was needed. However there is no doubt in my mind that the Germans deliberately and systematically murdered minorities on a massive scale. I am aware of revisionism. Nonetheless the reality is that those who were different were systematically rounded up and died. You may protest about PC but if you had been around in this time and your view had not been the state view, you likely would have died.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

The Nazis — and actually the whole german people — were initially villified after the start of the war, for war time propaganda purposes.

Yes and no. It was entering places like Bergen Belsen which got people going. Rommel for instance was greatly respected as being an honourable person on the warfield but what people found when they arrived at the camps was what did it.

I agree with you that the whole German people were vilified after the war.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

Then the leftists and progressives continued this villification in later years for political and ideological purposes. Casting the Nazis as "pure evil" was convenient to advance their social objectives— particularly racial equality.

I was born just after the war. Being told what the Nazi's did in their extermination camps is one of my first memories. Although it is true that terms such as the holocaust came later and I would agree that Israel uses the situation increasingly for propaganda but make no doubt about it, the disgust came from entering Germany camps after WW2.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

Attacking the Nazis was also an indirect way to attack patriotism and nationalism.

attacking the Nazi's was attacking the worst consequences of believing in eugenics. It showed the worst psychosis concerning Nationalism - disposing of those who different.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

The leftists have never liked Nationalists, even from the very beginning.

quit this over generalisation. It means nothing. Their are no 'the leftist'. The SNP is a social democratic party which wants independence for Scotland. It however is an inclusive party. Nationalism itself however tends to believe it is superior to others. Hence straight away creating an us and them situation for conflict and/or barbarity. The very point that traditional Nationlism is based on the Superiority theme allows it to harm the other. It is a psychologically unsound premise, hence not superior.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

There was a great civil war in China between the Nationalists and the Communists, for example. The very word "racism" was originally invented by a Marxist to slander Slavic Nationalists:

so?

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

It is clear from the rest of Trotsky's work that he was no better than the Nazis, perhaps worse:

yes, people can have debates about that. It does not change the reality that the reason the Frankfurt school introduced a psychological dimension was that they wanted to find how Germany under the Nazi's could have acted in the way it did and to find means to stop anyone, including people today from doing the same again to any people...something which anti-islam extremists who go by this propaganda like Pamela Geller your original link, might also pay head to. At this point there is on the propaganda level a convergence of Nat Socialist and anti-islamists so thank you for bringing to the forfront the lies and propaganda which are being presented called 'cultural marxism', not just by WN's like yourself but also by the new far right populist groups. .

Originally Posted by alexa

It was entering places like Bergen Belsen which got people going. Rommel for instance was greatly respected as being an honourable person on the warfield but what people found when they arrived at the camps was what did it.

They Allies did not need any concentration camps to justify the Dresden fire-bombings, which targeted innocent german civilians towards the end of the war, when it was already obvious that the germans would lose. These bombings had no military target.

Originally Posted by alexa

I agree with you that the whole German people were vilified after the war.

Not only after the war. At the start of the war. But really the the anti-german sentiments had already started at the end of the first world war.
By chance, I found an American book from that time in a library, about to be discarded. It discusses germans in a similar way to how the nazis talked about the jews. It is shocking that American society has changed so much since then. The new generations do not remember how things actually were during that time. That book did not go so far as to say the german race should be eleminated, but came very close. If not for all the Americans of german ancestry who had established themselves in the USA, I think a definitive genocide against germans would have been carried out, such was the state of public opinion.

Originally Posted by alexa

attacking the Nazi's was attacking the worst consequences of believing in eugenics. It showed the worst psychosis concerning Nationalism - disposing of those who different.

Many people try use the Nazis as an argument against eugenics. The simple fact is that genocide and Eugenics are two different things. Many of the Eugenics policies under Nazi germany were not so bad, and could well be of potential benefit to society. The USA was doing much of the same eugenic policies done by germany at the time. I think there is another thread somewhere on this forum where members debated eugenics.

I sympathise with Marxists on economic issues, but I am completely against the "social transformation" the mainstream Marxists are promoting, especially as it relates to immigration, and particularly race.

By embracing "racial diversity" (racial-mixing targeted toward the european/white countries), the Marxists and progressives have completely alienated me, and made a new enemy.

You are taking yourself very off topic.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

They Allies did not need any concentration camps to justify the Dresden fire-bombings, which targeted innocent german civilians towards the end of the war, when it was already obvious that the germans would lose. These bombings had no military target.

I agree the Dresden bombings were dreadful and the British public was furious when it found out about them. So much so that Churchill gave the impression he was not involved in them. All countries got involved in Total War.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

Not only after the war. At the start of the war. But really the the anti-german sentiments had already started at the end of the first world war.
By chance, I found an American book from that time in a library, about to be discarded. It discusses germans in a similar way to how the nazis talked about the jews. It is shocking that American society has changed so much since then. The new generations do not remember how things actually were during that time. That book did not go so far as to say the german race should be eleminated, but came very close. If not for all the Americans of german ancestry who had established themselves in the USA, I think a definitive genocide against germans would have been carried out, such was the state of public opinion.

One person's opinion as expressed in one book does not create a real picture and I have read enough to seriously doubt that that was widespread opinion. It does though take time for people to get over war. I have also discovered things which are not in the history books and some things I have not yet found the answer to.

I think there is a pretty large belief that the conditions put on Germany after WW1 laid the foundation for another war - but not for the mistreatment of minorities.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

Many people try use the Nazis as an argument against eugenics. The simple fact is that genocide and Eugenics are two different things.

I never said it was though it certainly holds within it the potential for such.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

Many of the Eugenics policies under Nazi germany were not so bad, and could well be of potential benefit to society.

I am at a bit of a loss as to what to say here. I do not believe in killing children or adults who are mentally or physically disabled or people who are not 'white' are gay, believe differently to me or whatever. That was it exploited and taken to it's worst in Germany till the end of WW2.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

The USA was doing much of the same eugenic policies done by germany at the time. I think there is another thread somewhere on this forum where members debated eugenics.

The US was indeed much the same regarding Eugenics at the time and if I remember correctly some had suggested camps for Jews and others. We saw the consequence of this line of thinking in Germany. Also remember that the Western World at that time had 'human zoos' where they used to bring people from far away parts of the world and display them as human type animals in zoos. It was a poor time in the world's learning. Seeing the consequences of allowing such thinking free reign as happened in Germany in WW2 brought the world to it's senses.

At the same time that a country such as Germany could act in this way was a shock to people who had considered Germany a Liberal civilised society.

Among the work done to try to make sure this would never happen again the Frankfurt school also looked at the psychological perspective of what could drive people to this.

Lest we forget our inhumanity and not learn from it and so repeat it.