Marx and Engels opposed Mass Immigration and the Gaystapo

Tadhg Gaelach

Staff member
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
39,707
Likes
39,251



I'm getting a bit tired if constantly reminding people that loving mass immigration and gay marriage does not make you a Marxist - so I decided to put the evidence for this in one thread.

So here is Marx on the question of mass immigration:

Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labor market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.

And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the black people in the former slave states of the U.S.A. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.

This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organization. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.

Letters: Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt 9 April 1870


And here is Engels on the Gaystapo:

These "unveilings" are extremely against nature. The pederasts begin counting themselves and find that they are forming a power within the state. Only an organisation was missing, but according to this, it seems to already exist in secret. And as they count among their numbers many important men within all the old parties and even in the new ones, from Rösing to Schweitzer, their victory is inevitable. 'Guerre aux cons, paix aux trous de cul' it will go now. It is only luck that we personally are too old to have to fear this party gaining victory - to have to pay bodily tribute to the victors. But the young generation! By the way, only in Germany would that a guy like that appear and translate his dirt into a theory. Unfortunately, he was not yet so courageous as to openly confess to being 'One of them,' and still has to operate coram publico 'from the front.' But, wait until the new North-German penal law has acknowledged the droits de cul - then it will turn out quite differently. As for poor 'from the front' people like us, with our childish preference for women, things will go badly enough.

Letter from Engels to Marx, June 22, 1869
 
Last edited:

SwordOfStCatherine

Staff member
Moderator
PI Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
13,752
Likes
16,062
I understand full well why a majority of Libertarians and Neo-Liberals are in favour of mass immigration but when it comes to Ultra-Left or the Ultra-Left on this question at least I am always puzzled. They seem to be living on a different planet to the one I live on.
 

Tadhg Gaelach

Staff member
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
39,707
Likes
39,251
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
I understand full well why a majority of Libertarians and Neo-Liberals are in favour of mass immigration but when it comes to Ultra-Left or the Ultra-Left on this question at least I am always puzzled. They seem to be living on a different to the one I live on.

I think it's pure opportunism. The likes of Richard Boyd Barret and Ivana Bacik know that only a few Native Irish people will ever vote for freaks like them - so they want to replace the population. Like the Democrats in the USA. The more Mexicans they can bring in - the more votes for them. Though I think Fine Gael is actually the party of choice for migrants in Ireland.
 

SwordOfStCatherine

Staff member
Moderator
PI Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
13,752
Likes
16,062
I think it's pure opportunism. The likes of Richard Boyd Barret and Ivana Bacik know that only a few Native Irish people will ever vote for freaks like them - so they want to replace the population. Like the Democrats in the USA. The more Mexicans they can bring in - the more votes for them. Though I think Fine Gael is actually the party of choice for migrants in Ireland.
No I think it is down to immaturity, a matter of things feeling right so therefore they are right without stopping to think everything through.
 

Macushla

PI Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,150
Likes
4,072
I understand full well why a majority of Libertarians and Neo-Liberals are in favour of mass immigration but when it comes to Ultra-Left or the Ultra-Left on this question at least I am always puzzled. They seem to be living on a different planet to the one I live on.
Some of the most puzzling and seemingly oxymoronic planks of the Left's platform cannot be fully reckoned with and understood by the rational man. The only way the rational western person can understand these puzzling aspects of the Left is to be aware of their Jewish origins. Once that connection is made then the rationale behind them makes a lot more sense and can be understood by a westerner, as they are not policies which are made for us or our benefit.
 
D

Deleted member 1106

Non Registered Member
GUEST



I'm getting a bit tired if constantly reminding people that loving mass immigration and gay marriage does not make you a Marxist - so I decided to put the evidence for this in one thread.

So here is Marx on the question of mass immigration:

Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labor market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.

And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the black people in the former slave states of the U.S.A. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.

This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organization. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.

Letters: Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt 9 April 1870


And here is Engels on the Gaystapo:

Those are just unveilings being extremely against nature. The pederasts begin counting themselves and find that they are forming a power within the state. Only an organisation was missing, but according to this it seems to be already existing in secret. And as they are counting so important men within all the old parties and even in the new ones, from Rösing to Schweitzer, their victory is inevitable. 'Guerre aux cons, paix aux trous de cul' it will go now. It is only luck that we personally are too old to have to fear, this party gaining victory, to have to pay bodily tribute to the victors. But the young generation! By the way, only possible in Germany that a guy like that appears, translates the dirt into a theory and invites: introite, and so on. Unfortunately he was not yet so courageous as to confess openly being 'One of them', and still has to operate coram publico 'from the front' even though not ,from the front into as he once says by mistake. But first wait until the new North-German penal law has acknowledged the droits de cul then it will turn out quite differently. As for poor people from the front like us, with our childish favour for women, things will be going badly enough.

Letter from Engels to Marx, June 22, 1869
Someone had a quote from James Connolly recently in which he lambasted the industrialists that were trying to flood the Irish work place with cheap foreign labour.
 

Tadhg Gaelach

Staff member
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
39,707
Likes
39,251
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
Someone had a quote from James Connolly recently in which he lambasted the industrialists that were trying to flood the Irish work place with cheap foreign labour.

Yes, both he and Larkin campaigned against cheap foreign labour - I think they particularly campaigned against Chinese labour - Larkin said some wacist things about the Chinese being more like automations than men.
 

Tadhg Gaelach

Staff member
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
39,707
Likes
39,251
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
Some of the most puzzling and seemingly oxymoronic planks of the Left's platform cannot be fully reckoned with and understood by the rational man. The only way the rational western person can understand these puzzling aspects of the Left is to be aware of their Jewish origins. Once that connection is made then the rationale behind them makes a lot more sense and can be understood by a westerner, as they are not policies which are made for us or our benefit.

When you say the Left has Jewish origins, do you mean in so far as the Left comes from Christianity. Btw. you could also say that Mohammad was a Leftist, as he wanted equality between people and insisted on transfers of wealth from the rich to the poor.
 

Macushla

PI Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,150
Likes
4,072
When you say the Left has Jewish origins, do you mean in so far as the Left comes from Christianity. Btw. you could also say that Mohammad was a Leftist, as he wanted equality between people and insisted on transfers of wealth from the rich to the poor.
Well I don't make as broad as statement as "the Left has Jewish origins". I was referring specifically to aspects of the modern left's platform which are seemingly contradictory can only be explained through understanding that these portions were designed by Jews and are in the interest of Jews (as opposed to the working-class in general, which is traditionally the left's raison d'être - right?).
 
D

Deleted member 1106

Non Registered Member
GUEST
Yes, both he and Larkin campaigned against cheap foreign labour - I think they particularly campaigned against Chinese labour - Larkin said some wacist things about the Chinese being more like automations than men.
Shocking stuff altogether...
 

Tadhg Gaelach

Staff member
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
39,707
Likes
39,251
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
Well I don't make as broad as statement as "the Left has Jewish origins". I was referring specifically to aspects of the modern left's platform which are seemingly contradictory can only be explained through understanding that these portions were designed by Jews and are in the interest of Jews (as opposed to the working-class in general, which is traditionally the left's raison d'être - right?).

I see what you mean. Yes, the Jews have always flocked to movements that sought to undermine Christian Europe. Napoleon was the first to give the Jews full citizenship in any Christian country - that would have been very unlikely under any Christian king.
 
Top Bottom