Consume Product

> immigration and the Left

I view Leftism (and Centrism) as intrinsically pro-immigration and pro-globalization. Leftists who reject it for various reasons, e.g. immigrants will increase environmental damage (various Green Left movements going into the 1990s), or damage the 'working class' (various post-Marxist movements, the Workers Party of Britain are perhaps a paradigmatic example), are really just impure Leftists who have unwittingly shifted Rightward on that issue. If I was a Leftist, I'd be 100% pro-globalization and pro-immigration. I think anything short of that would be arbitrary and contradictory.

> Communist-Nazi pipeline

The 'Left' is essentially a movement of degeneration and entropy. There is nothing that they consistently stand for other than this. For instance, they are anti-immigration when the immigrants are White South Africans; they are pro-free trade when Trump pushes tariffs; they were pro-big pharma during Covid, etc. Every time you think 'ah, here is something they are for', you will find that they can turn against it under the right conditions (e.g. if their perceived enemies embrace it, they will sometimes reverse their stance so as not to be on the same side as the 'Nazis') but they will never turn against degeneracy itself.

In those days, the level of degeneration had not reached the level that it has today. Consequently, the gap between the Far-Left (Marxist) and syncretic Left-Right (Fascist) was narrow: the average German Marxist still would have been German, heterosexual, etc.

In our century, the gap between the Far-Left and Fascist movements has become much wider: those who identify as Fascists, if anything, are probably more Right-Wing now than in the 1930s, whereas a population so degenerate now infests the Left (especially the Far- and Extreme-Left) that, for them, politics essentially a survival struggle. Growingly, you cannot find a single normal person in their ranks. These are people who can only really survive in a very Left-Wing society: these people understand - and fear - that if there is a Rightist revival, that their lives will essentially be impossibilized. For them, losing isn't just a change of faces or ideas. It's them being locked up, deported, or killed. They need *permanent* power, or else death is waiting just around the next corner. Thus their rampant support of censorship and violence (BLM riots causing *billions* in damage, their rampant destruction of statues [that represent those less degenerate times that they perpetually fear will return], their gleeful attitude towards the death of perceived enemies like Charlie Kirk [whose worldview wasn't even that different from their own] etc.). They have no Will to Power, as libertarians think they do. Rather, what they need power for is to ensure that degeneration continues unimpeded. It is self-preservation - with power as a means to maintain it - and fear that drives them, not Will to Power.

This is why I always scoff at the notion of a 'Red-Brown Alliance' today. The Far-Left isn't what it was a hundred years earlier: it now pursues a much more purified version of Leftist ideology, and cannot compromise with the Right the way the KPD could and did. There cannot be a Degenerate-Regenerate Alliance.

Those people who try to 'dewokify' the Left like 'Haz' and Hinkle are operating with a Left that no longer exists, one that was far more compromised with Rightism than they are willing to admit. Take those two - Haz, for instance, with his old 'MAGA Communism' schtick (now he is trying to push Islamic Marxism, his next attempt to move away from more pure Leftism), and Hinkle, for instance, who spoke to Tucker Carlson - plus Maupin: all three are more Republican than Democrat.

That things have shifted so far Leftward that these three Bolshevik Marxists, each of them born a century too late, are now more 'Right' than Left really exemplifies how crazy the political climate has become. The average 'Centre-Left' American is more Left-Wing than these three literal Bolsheviks.

> China, North Korea, Cuba

All of those countries are compromised with non-Leftist thought. China and North Korea, in particular, have essentially moved Rightward of the West on issues like immigration and race, while remaining very Left-Wing on other issues like abortion.

It is thus no surprise that Maupin, Haz, Hinkle, Norton, etc. tend to support these countries, because they share the same compromised 'tankie' Leftism. Off the top of my head, I have seen Norton shill for Cuba and Nicaragua, and Maupin shill for Nicaragua (he's a Catholic Marxist, as are the ruling Sandinistas). I don't follow any of these people: those are just things I've picked up from small excerpts of their videos shared by others. Religion and 'idealism' is one way in which they are compromised: instead of accepting Marx's 'materialist', 'opiate of the masses' atheist verdict, they try to harmonize Marxism with Catholicism (Maupin), Islam (Haz), etc.

By contrast, Japan is rapidly becoming a propositional nation under the Thatcherite 'Iron Lady' Takaechi and there is plenty of talk in South Korea that they too should open up their borders to immigrants. Meanwhile, North Korea remains one of the most ethnically homogenous countries globally, with no sign of their government attempting to change that any time soon: the North will probably prefer population decline over immigration, whereas the South clearly prefers the opposite.

> Prior to the 1960s nu-left and hippie movements, the left (quite correctly I must admit) viewed rampant immigration as something that would destroy the working class

Isn't it fascinating that it happened anyway? The mass immigration occurred for many decades already, way before the left swung around to endorse it.