Topic: Why are americans accusing their lefties of communism for open borders? (Read 198 times)

globalisation will never homogenise, soon enough, there will be rich and poor segregating everything, also religious and national dna will continue, for through homogenisation it is now time to diversify nonwhite nonwestern countries like china, india and africa

These are all solutions (labor spreads) are things which would not exist for corporate business after globalization has homogenized the worlds populations and societies via open borders.  [You can (and should) argue that it won't matter much as automation takes over.]

The winners would be the people who control the largest corporations at the time of a 'flip' to centralized economic control since they would step into those positions in the new regime.  It seems that there is ample evidence that indeed, some of these people are the most active in furthering the globalization project.  To a degree they use the resources of the corporations they control (and build new corporations) to do this, but it's not the main vehicle they use as I see it.  They use governments (through lobbying, Epstien-esque methods, etc) and NGOs, and especially the combination of the two.

---

At a deeper (and to me much more interesting) level, it seems the case that their will be a homogenization and centralization of control.  It's going to happen, folks, and about all we can hope for with distributed crypto-currencies is that they attenuate some people's flexibility in certain ways.  The question is who will be in charge of 'it' (aka, the 'new world order')?  There are two main factions as I see it:

 - Resource based.

 - Debt based.

The resource based folks favor smaller and more controlled populations;  'their' resources will go farther and they can induce artificial scarcity more effectively.

The debt-based crowd are better served by larger populations; there are more potential debt-slaves, and said debt slaves need the 'freedom' to most effectively service the debt that they've been saddled with.

Although highly simplified and inaccurate, these two groups could be represented by Rockefeller and Rothschild respectively.

The resource-based group has been out of the driver's seat since territory/feudalism times and the rise of modern banking, but they've had plenty of capability to set up for a recapture and have been working on it diligently for about 100 years.  (The 'global warming' hoax is a minor and current artifact of their labors.)  The debt-based crowd have more recently seen the danger and dug in for the fight (and Trump is a minor artifact of their reaction.)

The dynastic wealth, and even the primary combatants themselves to a large degree, have put bets on both sides.  I suspect they will try for a sharing agreement since both sides are guaranteed a pretty big slice of pie (game theory.)  They'll always be jockeying for an upper hand though, and ready to completely slit the throat of the other side if the opportunity presents itself.

do you live under a rock?`

american farmer outcry after trump closed the border,
german automaker trying to hire from outside the EU
salvini tried to close italian border, and got sued

Bring some examples please.  I have seen 'captains of industry' pay lip-service to a lot of the agenda items of 'globalism', of which population movements are one, but there are all kinds of reasons why that would happen.  The 'boots on the ground' actually implementing the policies don't seem to have direct funding ties to global corporate entities that I know of.

I've been paying attention to politics for some time.  Only a few decades ago immigration was indeed a 'big business' thing and fairly obviously it was for the purposes of bringing down wages like you say.  'Liberals' were anti-immigration.  That shifted notable and relatively suddenly along with a lot of other policies.  Sadly a healthy percentage of 'Liberals' did a 180-degree about face with their policy directors without missing a beat.

Anyway, with modern globalization where you can bring most work to the cheapest labor, industry really doesn't need 'cheap labor'.  It actually makes more sense to have discrete nations with different economics and different policies.  Lumping everyone into a state of 'equity' will work very much against those who's business model involves playing the 'labor spread'.

Both logic and observation indicate to me that the goal of 'open borders' is 'deeper' than some profit maximization scheme.  On the other hand it is pretty much an exact match for the prophesies/fantasies of one certain group in particular.  In might be simple coincidence that it is this same group who are very very over-represented in making 'open borders' a reality.  Or it might not.

private corporations use their money to lobby for open borders so they can exploit the masses of cheap immigrant labour, the rich then blend in with the immigrants marry them, so they look like them, while in the meantime betraying their own countrymen. thats how it works in germany, i saw that with my own eyes, thats how they see how nationalsocialism without communist socialism is supposed to work.

It actually doesn't make much sense from any standpoint that 'private corporation are the driving force behind policies which would 'destroy' the Western European nations.  And I've seen no real evidence that that is the case.  On the other hand, U.S. and Israeli operations (esp, the creation and support of so-called ISIS) created a lot of the refugee supply, and a bunch of so-called 'NGO groups' have been doing the transport of these 'displaced persons.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53A5AJoRxF0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZrLt5q0SxI  Some of that good 'ol stage managed rescues in this one.  Lol.

One hypothesis is that segments within the Jewish world WANT Jews to be hated and despised all around the globe and don't really seek to hide their genocide in 'their land' and interference operations within other nations.  They want and need 'anti-semitism' and seek to create it at every opportunity.  The simple reason for this is that they want/need a re-population of the so-called 'promised land' by the so-called 'chosen people' to fulfill certain of their prophecies/fantasies.  Yet another set of purges here and there would be just the ticket.

I honestly don't remember seeing any Talmudic/Kabbalahistic person stating the aforementioned strategy in a totally blunt manner, but some of them have come mighty close.  If I were one of the 95% of Jews who is just a normal person I would be terrified of what the radical Jews are up to and working hard(er than I already do) to see the project wither on the vine.  An attempt is unlikely to end well for anyone.

soviet union had borders more protected than even stupid eu with almost no borders to turkey, eu is even helping migrants to pass the mediterannian,

entire european union's society is being destroyed by greed private corporations that lobby more and more foreigners into the country.

The soviet union and the communism was a special regime which is not the same such as the leftist ideology that exists now.
They are accused by the republicans mostly because they believe that they are not only a country for America. It is a country that belongs to all people and all people are equal to be part of the country.

I think you'll find that there is plenty of 'racism' amongst those who have motive force in this project, but it's simply sliced differently than is commonly associate with 'racism' as constructed in mainstreamland.

'Corporate lobbyism' is just a tool used by those who have board seats on corporations.  I've really never seen anyone systematically diagram that out.  It's a shame, too, because there is probably a lot to tease out from such a puzzle.


I would say that the Libertarians dis-like the state and in some circumstances would work to destroy it, but almost the whole reason to do so would be to get it's boot off their neck.  Cheap labor has noting to do with it in their case, but they are a fringe (non-)group with nearly zero power.  A very big driver is indeed 'cheap labor', but it ain't no Libertarians driving that train.


Yup.  That's the plan, and it's not just Europe.

i am really no big friend of the forced migrations, the main driver of them are the nonracist/nonnationalist and inclusive social welfare systems state corruption, and most of all corrupt corporate lobbyism,

brits after brexit will find themselves with libertarians who will try to destroy the state in order to get into the state masses of cheap labour migrants they can exploit.

Eu with its global migration is basically destroying europe

Most people confuse 'Communists' and 'Jews'.  Part of it is deliberate (if unconscious) in order to avoid the anti-semite label which terrifies most normies to the core.  The other part is that there is, historically, so much Jewish influence in Communism that it's a fairly easy mistake to make.

Communist governments often do influence society by mass migrations and genocides, but that is common for ALL totalitarian forms of government.  It appeals especially to those who are enamored with central planning (e.g., most who call themselves 'socialist' and 'librals' these days) and those who are chronically paranoid about losing power (e.g., nearly every government with one very notable exception in the early days of the United States and shortly before.)

The so-called 'Muslim invasion' in Europe and the migrations into North America are nearly entirely driven by a pretty well known 'utopian' vision associated with Jewish people who tend toward the 'liberal' side and a parallel idea prevalent among the Talmudic folks from who's literature both sides basic belief's can be traced.

The general idea is a pure 'chosen people' race ruling over a mass of 'the nations' (mixed race light-browns).  (The more secular 'liberal' crowd focuses on 'ideological purity' where the more conservative Talmudic folks go for the ethnically pure 'descendants of David' line.)  They plan to 'bring peace', and seem to genuinely believe that only they can do it.

But before they can 'bring peace' the existing powers must be toppled.  Hence the immigration goings-on.

Since the discussion started with borders, I think it's got to do with what they intend to do with those coming across - giving them entitlements they don't deserve, that they haven't worked for. There are plenty of homeless people in the West Coast and yet the leftists there are planning to let in Latinos en masse and give them salary, houses and cars.

Of course us speculators can only guess whether this is being perpetrated by commies who want to change the society or capitalists who want to flood the country with cheap labor.

Open borders is a form of wealth redistribution true.  We are born into a lot of wealth in the US and have access to resources and opportunities that are stolen from latin America.  Our imperialistic foreign policy has degraded conditions in the countries from which streams of migrants are coming so its only right that they are allowed to come here and share in the wealth we don't deserve.

You also have to think about labor.  Borders are only enforced on working class labor but are not enforced on goods and materials.    A GM worker in Mexico makes 20% of the pay doing the exact same work building that exact same car as a worker in the US.  This exploitation only works with a border that is enforced on the worker but not the car.  Capitalist overlords sell the car in the US at full price.  It doesn't destroy our society but its definitely a form of justice that the worker would be able to come across the border and make 5x more.  What happened to your free market ideals?  Freedom?

By keeping people in a cage, you can exploit them.  Freedom of movement is a human right open borders protect that right.  I can go anywhere in the world and so can the elite of the global south and so can our products and goods.  The border is only experienced by the proletariat.  

there is a big problem though many angolo saxian capitalists call their opposition communists, but they are simply the financially excluded and financially disadvantaged as opposed to the royalty,

communists don't seek to cause damage they simply seek to improve the communal economy.

soviet officials never really bothered with the so called "leftists" as they all knew if communist would kick in those people would simply switch ideology and continue protesting and damaging

has nothing to do with right wing extrmism, life always punishes the good guys.

Godwin in one!  So, I pointed out that Communism is also called “Internationalism”, and you are ignorant (or, I now suspect, willfully misrepresenting Communism).  You replied by ignoring what I said, and clearly insinuating a cry of “Nazi!”

Well, I am so sorry to disappoint you, my NSDAP Gold Party Badge was revoked on grounds that I am not actually Aryan.  I am not even white, though maybe I could “pass” if I wanted to; I don’t want to, because I see white people as fluffy white sheep infected with liberalism.  (The exceptions, them’s the good ones!)  Thus alas, if you want to play the “racist” card, then according to your own rules, I can play the race card.  Check your privilege before you make microaggressive assumptions about the person behind a nym.  Or are you saying that non-whites are incapable of knowing more facts about Communism than you do?  Perhaps next, you will say that my Bitcoin technical posts should be discounted due to my race?

Please try replying to my post again—and this time, address what I said without reaching for memetic kill-switches to stop (gasp!) thoughtcrime.  If you persist in sinister flights of lefty “logic”, then I will either indulge the same myself, as I just did, or simply ignore you.

Now, in another one of your threads, I just replied at length to some posts including another of yours, which is also quite revealing in this context:


That sounds suspiciously like you are saying that lefties welcome hostile aliens to invade a country.

Are you a secret right-wing extremist?  I am so confused!

---

Note for those who may only know English as a second language, or who have stereotypical American-level literacy:  “Aliens” is in this context a synonym for “outsiders”, by definition.

so there are still people that want to return to tribal, national and race based world view? don't they know what happened in germany? in the last century?

collection of obscure myths...
communism is a synonym for multiculturalism, where everyone is united and mixed. And what gave rise to feminism, abortion, etc.

PS in the USSR there was no communism, there was a semblance of "socialism"

I don't know about that. Seems to me that we'd more likely build a second wall.

One to keep people out, and the other to keep them in.

Agreed. Watch the walls go up once it goes full communist. Except this time the wall is to keep people in, like in Germany before the Berlin Wall fell.

There's a huge difference between people who want to destroy a society in order to build a socialist state and the rules and regulations that exist when a socialist state has been created.

If you keep that in mind you wouldn't be confused. Open borders combined with a welfare state combined with an attempted immediate citizenship destroys the existing system. This is good if you despise what's in existence and not good if you want to preserve the existing social structure.

Evidently.

Protip:  There is a reason why Communism is also called “Internationalism”, the early Communist quasi-governing body was in various forms called “Communist International” (First International, Second International, etc.), Communism is rife with talk about “world revolution” (and “Workers of the world, unite!”, etc.), and the official anthem of Communism is titled The Internationale.  (For obvious reasons, it is not a national anthem.)

Now, whyever do you suppose that an internationalist may object to national borders?

The majority of people who opine on Communism know next to nothing about what it actually is.  This does include most “American right-wingers and Trumpers”—however, you know even less!  You confuse the implementation details of Communism in a particular territory, at a particular point in time, with the essence of Communist principles (or what passes for “principles” to a Communist).

I suggest that you study political philosophy and history before you show such gross ignorance, which I am not in the mood to correct at length.  Read some books.  Start with both 19th and 20th century Marxist theoretical literature (to see what high-level Communists say in their own words—I suggest ignoring the low-level Communist propaganda until you first understand the high-level theory), the better literature of anti-Communists of the same era (to see the actual reasons why intelligent people criticize Communism), and some basic history—not necessarily in that order.

---

I could never help but notice that Capitalism is globalist, whilst Communism is internationalist.  And I could never help but notice that nobody else seems to notice...  Anyway, I am just passing through on my way to make some investments on Communist China’s stock exchanges.  Indeed, the whole Communist Chinese economy is booming with the activities of big, multinational globalist corporations!  Meanwhile, in America, the big, multinational globalist corporations are big supporters of the relaxed border controls at all levels which help bring them “cheap labour”, “free trade”, etc.  Well, got to go!  Those hot Communist stock picks await me.

I learnt long ago to stop attempting to understand what Americans think about these things. They're all aliens.

Real ones, not the illegal type.

It is better to close the borders as soon as possible. See what is happening in Europe. People from other countries are making trouble in the countries that receive them

american right wingers and trumpers accuse the democrats and liberals as "communists" for having open borders but, in real life communism like the soviet union the borders where pretty much closed.

complete confussion.

also soviet communism was very conservatives, no gay marriage, women destined to marry and get children etc.

but still the liberals in the usa are being accuse of communism.

why?

regards