Would Eastern Europe have received a lot of non-White immigration over the last 75 years if it wasn't for Communism?

Jun 2018
536
New Hampshire
If the great Otto von Bismark were still alive, how do you think he would feel about the policies of the current German government? What with their support for mass third world immigration and demographic replacement?

My guess is none too kindly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,406
SoCal
Bismarck probably feared the demographic threat posed by Poles. Thus, I certainly can't imagine him being too pleased with large-scale immigration of Syrians, Eritreans, Iraqis, Afghans, et cetera.
 
Apr 2017
138
Bayreuth
(...) A government that seems to be not only just fine with demographic replacement, but enthusiastic about the prospect, hardly seems to be in step with national pride.
Because such stuff does not exist in Germany. Our nationalism was a result of Prussians who tried to legitimize their rule over other German (mainly Catholic) cultures and then came the Nazis and ruined everything.
We understand ourselves as a culture federation and no nation and that was always the case.

You are US-American first. THEN you are white/black or Jew or whatever and here it ends.
Germans go like this: I am Colognian. THEN I am of the Rhine-Frankish zone THEN I am a Rhinelander THEN I am west German THEN I am German.
And every other German sees me like that. That you can not tell the differences we know and we do not talk to you like that. But we see them in language, in mentality and in culture in daily life.

We do have a much higher cultural diversity then you got, because we never had that national unity, like they had in France or Britain and only German factions that tried to rule over others. You speak all English. Up to the 1980s we had people in the country that could not understand each other.
That is why you got so easily misinformed specifically in all Lutheran/English zones, because you think Prussia (the former ally) is Germany or universal German and fill it up with info from your places, while we do not run like this.

Fun fact: The German nationalists were pro immigration and connected with the Muslims.
Specifically if you are a Prussian fan-boy you should love the guys of the ME and NA. That are your allies and best friends (they fought the Catholics).

You have to want to breed me out, but you do not have the population – that is why you bring in as much people from all over Europe, give them a German passport and send them into the places you want to control.
As American you should be familiar with that concept. Only that the others are no natives but (today) other Germans.

Your example is perfect with your imagination of Bismarck.
As well what Futurist thinks is total nonsense. All that Polish guys are living at my place. That is exactly what I talk about.

The Prussians hated the Polish, the Nazis hated the Polish, the Polish cry: We resist the Germans and the Russians! (they sing that).
Logical conclusion: Bismarck must have hated or feard the Polish.

And here every third has a Polish last name from the 19th century and there are soccer clubs based on that Polish guys and from where else not.
They feared them so much - that they brought so many into here - that soccer clubs (Schalke 04) were called Polak-Clubs.

Here you go. And that is already the English pro-Polish propaganda version. Click on the German. At the bottom they use the city Bottrop 6600 (1875) grew onto 69.000 in (1925) - made the local German population a minority.
500.000 people in 1910 - that still had a double-passport; so germanized guys (means they changed to German names) and children not included.

That is your Bismarck. That are your Prussians. Your German nationalists.

Then how do you explain comrade Merkel and her importation of hundreds of thousands of African and Middle Eastern migrants?
You talk about the refugee crisis
Be smart. If you see something like this and you figure out that is idiotic – then do not look for easy answers like: Yeah, the Germans just do this because they were Nazis and now they are sorry for that.
If something looks strange – you do not have all information. Always. It is a rule of thumb.

Okay. Stick with me:
We put a lot of money into East-Europe to bring them on our level.
Now what is between Greece and Germany? The Balkan, right?
Do you know how big these countries are like Greece, Croatia, Hungary etc?
Max. 10 mil. people. Most of them 5 mil.

Now you remember the Yugoslavian war? During that war they had rape-camps to out-breed Muslims and that guys still do not like each other. UN is on the ground there.
Now are there 1 mil. Muslims in Greece – means suddenly are 10% of the Greek population people from the ME and NA.
The people do not stay there – they move into other countries.

That is the reason why Germany said: We take in that refugees.
To prevent a human catastrophe in South-East-Europe, that had not 30 years ago a war and Germany (as EU member) put a lot of money in to develop infrastructures.

And Merkel is not like your US-president, she does not have the power. Before she declared that, she talked to all German states if they are willing to take on that challenge.

That this was then presented like people hang around Turkey and Germany suddenly says out of the blue: "Hey! Muslim! Do you want free money?! Get over here!" I saw first hand.

The real problem you can have with Merkel and the German government is that these flippers did not pay the bills in advance (that is why that people fled in the first place) and sat the situation out, while being warned that this is going to happen, but did not make the decision till it happened.
This is why do not make the mistake here to give out a noble prize. That was damage repair and nothing else.

And as you think that is comrade – that people are the opposite. That are the German conservatives who risked before the big lip that if countries like Greece, Italy, Spain would not be so incompetent then they would not have problems with refugees and that arrogance backfired of course – as 2016NYE happen – because up to that moment even skeptics said: Ok, we can not leave these people in the Balkan no matter if we like them or not.
But that tipped over and as opportunistic as they are they got cold feet and asked other countries for a common solution – that of course showed the middle-finger back.

But the situation is a little more complex in general, but the problem is not politics.
The problem are the lobbies.
Here the churches. The Protestant and Catholic church are gigantic power players in Europe.
In Germany the Catholic church is the second biggest employer. And our other conservatives outsourced the half social sector to the churches.
They have the social sector, sit in the media, have gigantic possessions (they own whole districts in cities) and have political power.
So far so good – BUT – 50% of the populations in modern European countries do not belong, even on paper to any religion.
So how long do you think will it take till more and more people figure out that these lobbies who represent 20% of the population have that amount of power and prosperity?
What do you think would happen if we start to ban Islam in a country? A major religion?
That is why they protect them and put their power forward for Islamic organizations.

And in your example in Germany they get something from it, because the churches are the guys who care for refugees. In my area the woman in charge is the protestant priest who holds now an official office next of being priest. The money Germany pays for refugees goes to the churches (via their organizations).
Downside of this, and why that is such a problem: A mosque is not like a church.
A mosque is a propaganda center for politics, culture and perception of the lobby (could be a government as well) who built it.
Means in a Turkish mosque you have Turkish propaganda and Turkish perception. In a Tunesian Tunesian etc. etc.

In your country – 1% Muslims – of them 10% radicals spread over an entire continent – that is no problem. Just in Cologne – 200.000 Muslims 10% radicals = 20.000 that run by that nonsense and try to influence everybody of the 200.000 to be like them.

Now how do you want to deal with them? Forbade religious freedom? Fine them for pro-Turkish propaganda? How do you measure that?
Yeah. I can say I would ban Islam and say go to America if you want religious freedom and do not stop there and go further onto the churches. But do you think I can win election in Germany with that or anywhere on the planet? Do you think they will stay aside? It is against the constitution to talk like that. Instant trouble.

So bottom line: There is nobody in control or has a master-plan. The overall problem is that we know what we do not want – but nobody knows what we do want.
And our politicians are just playing along. Merkel is just an opportunist. Always was. Always will be.
That you even think that is communists. Communists are the biggest enemy of the church.
Merkel is the daughter of a protestant priest. That woman has more empathy for people who run on believe than I do. If that is a communist I am Lenin.

If you really care for humans – do not care for the Europeans, we are ice-cold bastards if we click – specifically Germans. Really. I worked for a TV stations as IS was around – the first thing the editors did were sending out pictures of them and people were laughing cross the departments, that if they look like that we were not scared/impressed. That are our liberal TV-hippies.
Care for the people from NA or ME who ran away from there, because they hate it, as if they get into the crossfire – they will be shot like the guys – they ran away from.
 

Theodoric

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
2,959
Yötebory Sveriya
Good question! I can’t say I know the answer because my knowledge of Islamic spread is limited after 13th century.

For starters, the Rashidun and Umayyad expansions were primarily a unification of the Roman and Persian Empires in that they maintains the globalist Imperial economies. The expansion was halted due to internal struggles/growing pain, which climaxed during the Abbasid revolution and the fracturing of Persian Islam vs Arabic Islam, and the Umayyad holdout in Andalusia.

The Abbasid period marked a check on expansionism, and also a change of focus to development of what had already been conquered in what became known as the Islamic Golden Age. It was a period of diverse ideas and exchanges of information through the largest Empire the world had ever known to that point. The Empire was also not majority Islam, and highly cosmopolitan in its cities until toward the end of the Golden Age. The expansion of Islam was not only bad for the Empire, but bad for Islam. The irony is that it was primarily the non-intellectuals who were not Muslim — not that Jewish and Christian intellectuals didn’t thrive in the Empire, only that the vast majority of those who had interest in the classics, philosophy, history, science, the arts, mathematics were Islamic. When more of the anti-intellectual types got their hooks in, they would attack the intellectuals for not being Muslim enough: or proper muslims. Ironically, as Islam began to fall, it also began to expand into Western and Eastern Africa, simple cultural transmission. But then catastrophe hit when the Mongol Empire levelled half the Empire and destroyed many economic centres and trade routes, which crippled most of the rest of the Empire.

Expansion in Africa would have began to suffer shortly after it began.

Later Sultanates from the 16th century, after the decline and fall of rival powers in Asia, did expand, but by that point Europeans would have begun expansionism into Africa, and by the 18th century, heavily so (far more in the 19th century).

In the 20th century is when expansion began once more. But by then the nature of Islam had drastically changed in Africa to that of relative poverty to its past heights. So it’s not really the same type of culture that would have been expanding before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Dec 2017
801
-------
You talk about the refugee crisis
If you see something like this and you figure out that is idiotic – then do not look for easy answers like: Yeah, the Germans just do this because they were Nazis and now they are sorry for that..
That's true.
Shame and guilt were instilled in the minds of Germans over decades because of Germans' Nazi past. Nowadays, Germans know bringing refugees to Germany who come to collect welfare is wrong. But Germans don’t speak out as much as people of other societies may.
There was a program known as ‘denazification’ after WWII ended , which was an initiative to rid German and Austrian society, culture, press, economy, judiciary, and politics of the National Socialist ideology (Nazism)
Denazification - Wikipedia

Churchill considered many problems were coming from Prussia. So eastern Prussia was divided between USSR and Poland. Much of Prussia was transferred to Poland. Tensions were not only between Prussians and Slavs (Poles, Czechs and others) in the 20th century. Cultural tensions between German speakers and others living to the east of them, Slavs and Balts for example, began a long time . Ever since Elbe Slavs (Wends to Germans) lived just to the east of Elbe river. In historeography this is known as eastward expansion or Ostsiedlung in German . In the 20th Nazis exploited Ostsiedlung.
Ostsiedlung - Wikipedia
 
  • Like
Reactions: Picard
Oct 2011
487
Croatia
The majority of this world is not white, and with globalization, we’ll stop being white. It is OK.

We all were darker even 8000 years ago, and the first blue eye mutation appeared at that time. Mankind changed it looks many times during the evolution.

It is another thing that before you invite people in, you have to calculate if you will be able to provide them with jobs, and estimate how soon they might acculturate. You don’t invite people “to live” if there are no jobs for them. Germany is bound to have a huge problem with their migrants, sooner or later.
Thing is, diversity is created through isolation. And if loss of biodiversity in general is bad, why do some people consider loss of diversity (biological, cultural etc.) in one species to be good? That is something I never could understand about globalist ideology.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,406
SoCal
Good question! I can’t say I know the answer because my knowledge of Islamic spread is limited after 13th century.

For starters, the Rashidun and Umayyad expansions were primarily a unification of the Roman and Persian Empires in that they maintains the globalist Imperial economies. The expansion was halted due to internal struggles/growing pain, which climaxed during the Abbasid revolution and the fracturing of Persian Islam vs Arabic Islam, and the Umayyad holdout in Andalusia.

The Abbasid period marked a check on expansionism, and also a change of focus to development of what had already been conquered in what became known as the Islamic Golden Age. It was a period of diverse ideas and exchanges of information through the largest Empire the world had ever known to that point. The Empire was also not majority Islam, and highly cosmopolitan in its cities until toward the end of the Golden Age. The expansion of Islam was not only bad for the Empire, but bad for Islam. The irony is that it was primarily the non-intellectuals who were not Muslim — not that Jewish and Christian intellectuals didn’t thrive in the Empire, only that the vast majority of those who had interest in the classics, philosophy, history, science, the arts, mathematics were Islamic. When more of the anti-intellectual types got their hooks in, they would attack the intellectuals for not being Muslim enough: or proper muslims. Ironically, as Islam began to fall, it also began to expand into Western and Eastern Africa, simple cultural transmission. But then catastrophe hit when the Mongol Empire levelled half the Empire and destroyed many economic centres and trade routes, which crippled most of the rest of the Empire.

Expansion in Africa would have began to suffer shortly after it began.

Later Sultanates from the 16th century, after the decline and fall of rival powers in Asia, did expand, but by that point Europeans would have begun expansionism into Africa, and by the 18th century, heavily so (far more in the 19th century).

In the 20th century is when expansion began once more. But by then the nature of Islam had drastically changed in Africa to that of relative poverty to its past heights. So it’s not really the same type of culture that would have been expanding before.
I think that you made this post in the wrong thread.