Flooding the Country with Immigrants That Will Vote For You

nothing more liberal than a tankie, tbh

No I mean Lyndon Johnson

see if you're uneducated and ignorant enough to believe that bernie and liberals in general are actually left and/or socialist, you don't qualify to come here asking questions.

get educated, then come here for discussions

I honestly don't get what you're saying.

There's some pros and cons about him.

Which one?

Are they even relevant?

shitposter

Killing Qaddafi is what caused this flood of blacks

are you shitposting, or a legit retarded reactionary? can't tell

why not both?

Nigga, I just said. "Current mass immigration in Europe is a result of capitalism, Imperialism with a human face."

Do you actually have an argument?

If these new immigrants are revolutionaries and not reactionaries then I don't see why they wouldn't help the revolution. Sadly, I think there's too many reactionary fundamentalist Muslims among them for them to act in revolutionary fashion.

What is the capitalistic incentive to destroy Europe?

what argument do you think you can have with me? might as well be arguing with my dog about hegel

Creating war and poverty will surely help ""them""".

except immigrants don't vote, ever. At least in my country, the number of immigranst that votes is o low that's ridiculous.

capitalists are a globalist force and aren't affected by the "destruction" of any one region

they also have enough money that they can insulate themselves against whatever changes they effect

The capitalists don't give a shit about muh culture and people. All they care about is profit.

The immigrants will be a cheap labor source and the porkies don't really care about people working for them as long as they make money for them.

Also you should read this.
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

And you don't think that the people who live in the country already wouldn't get just a little upset with this and that it wouldn't alienate them to run counter to your "revolutionary" ideas?

War is not profitable, you are propagating a myth. Yes it is profitable for military equipment interests but on the opposite hand they will be at a net loss from where they began because war is overall bad for global GDP, worker morality, market certainty, etc.

Ignoring the "your guy" part, Sanders was quite openly against open borders for the US. As usual Holla Forums prefers BLM cuck memes over facts

They can be revolutionaries too, we just have to educate them.

see

War is not profitable, the markets don't like war in the short term or long term. You make money to be able to wage war not the other way around.

The context you're putting that in implies that by "educating" you mean enslaving.

But the result of war is.

When has he in his entire 30 year political history voted AGAINST mass immigration or visa policies?

Mass immigration policies have never existed because this isn't yurop, and visa policies are pretty much a third rail because without them the economy explodes.

you naive motherfucker

military.com/daily-news/2015/01/28/pentagon-tells-congress-to-stop-buying-equipment-it-doesnt-need.html

No it isn't, because in the long term your deficit stays ahead of the revenue you gained from the result of the war unless you actually harvest the resources from the area and enslave the people, and even then the resources required to keep an outstretched puppet government far outweigh not even going for the trouble in the first place.

NACARA
HRIFA
LIFE Act
FY 1995 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill

It's an immediate cause, but it mass migration from the southern hemisphere has long been predicted

...

Something that doesn't exist in 2016, because if they did the puppet governments would be stable

It's more like the reasons to go to war (exploit resources, defend other capitalist interests) is

Does not happen in a capacity that is profitable. If Imperialism was actually going on the middle east would not be a powder keg.

you literally started a thread on the results of imperialism and you're denying it exists

access to oil fields and building pipelines isn't profitable

ok

I hate this meme of let refugees in.

Yeh no, most refugees I know were either African and fairly chill and may do something revolutionary if the time came but they seem very content and happy to just be in England.

While most tended to be Muslims and Muslims are the biggest reactionaries of all, strong traditional religious people will never ever partake in a revolutionary and if they ever did it would only be one to push their religion.

tl:dr

Sure you can argue it's morally right but it's not helping any revolution at all.

You're redefining imperialism to label destabilization of a region

Can't build a fuckin pipeline too well when some faggot drives a flatbed worth of fertilizer into town to explode now can you? If Capitalists wanted to wage war to exploit resources they wouldn't half ass it at all and it would be totally transparent.

It is TOTALLY transparent though. And capitalism is all about half-assing things, putting in the least amount of effort for the desired effect.

Our current wars in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East are basically Banana Wars 3.0.

Thats not how fucking capitalism works asshat. Capitalism isn't easy because if it were fucking easy you wouldn't be a fucking communist. You don't just put minimal effort into shit and somehow you vomit rainbows and shit out money.

Didn't existed? Jesus christ, you don't even know the history of you own country?
Between 1836 and 1914 more than 30 million people immigranted to the USA. Isn't that a mass immigration policy?30 fucking million.

but it's okay because they're white and not brown :^)

...

Because brown people don't share our culture or values or language or mathematical systems or level of intellect.

What did he mean by this?

Imperial standards of units was not enacted until 1825

Holy fuck, you think the imperial system is superior?

he means he's a reactionary scared of other reactionaries

COMPREHENSION
O
M
P
R
E
H
E
N
S
I
O
N

You didn't answer my question, bud.

All the Poles, Italians, slavs who immigrated to the United States 150 years ago didn't share their culture. They weren't even considered "white"

and irish too, they weren't considered white

Like pottery.

You could reasonably make the argument that western Poles have Germanic culture.
Very few people in the modern united states have slavic immigrant ancestry, most of those that do are people who are ethnically slavic and their parents were immigrants into western europe, had their kid in western europe, then their westernized kid came here.

...

...

splitting hairs tbh

what about the Bohunks and Russians going over between 1880-1910, you history grad-tier idiot? There are like millions of those fuckers in the Midwest, Virginia and NJ.

Hmpf…Stalin should have been allowed to exterminate every German after the end of ww2.
Now we wouldn't have this little cunt talking about "german culture". Germans are garbage, they talk loud, they seem to have an hard time into understanding basic social norms and are filthy. Just complete retards. Still, worst than being a retarded german is a being a muh heritage turd such as yourself.
Now fuck off corruption lover. People like you are nothing but a waste of resoruces and oxygen.

oh cue, paddies werent considered white either. just goes to show how the whole concept of "white" in the US is completely arbitrary and retarded