Let's try to tell the story a little differently: around the 1970s/80s (Vietnam war, civil unrest, communist danger everywhere) the USA/CIA thought that, since religion was the opium of the people, betting on religion was a wise move (the PMC, as you call them, has no face, and this political choice has authors and names, that's why I sa…
Let's try to tell the story a little differently: around the 1970s/80s (Vietnam war, civil unrest, communist danger everywhere) the USA/CIA thought that, since religion was the opium of the people, betting on religion was a wise move (the PMC, as you call them, has no face, and this political choice has authors and names, that's why I say USA/CIA - Europe was not so much in the game by that time, I think). Khomeini's return to Iran (as well as his exile in France) was part of that move. It wasn't so much the hippie idea of a world of peace and harmony (but the CIA has since learned how to use it, bien sur), but the deliberate desire to disturb or defeat the secular Left (particularly in the Middle East, but also in Europe).
As one with a functional brain would expect, the move got out of control. Also because the Muslim world (contrary to what your article seems to presuppose), is today a space of intelligent people and advanced technology (and who also agree that religion is an excellent instrument of control). By the way, Putin did more or less the same move in the successful transition from the USSR to Russia. As for the emigration question, one could argue that in the USA they have a Christian Latin-American problem, not a Muslim one
I am sure that the creeps in the CIA had a part, but as a American and Californian, having seen this immigration problem first hand and for forty years, I would make the Democratic and Republican Party more responsible. Both wanted to drive down the cost of labor with the destruction of the unions a nice bonus especially for the Republicans. The Democrats also believed that the new waves of immigrants would be just a Democratic as well as the previous waves had been. Greed, ambition, power, and contempt is a vicious combination.
The fact that almost nobody in the ninety percent of the economic bottom of the population wanted uncontrolled immigration, including the Latinos already here, some of which have lived in the Southwest since the sixteenth century, did not concern the proponents of immigration. There was always the cry of racism and since even the corrupt, often very illegal use, of B1 and B2 visas has been ignored much of the middle class as well as the poor and working classes have seen their income threatened if not just destroyed.
Concurrently, as all the extra workers were imported, there was the sending off of most of the United States' industry was done without the approval of the general population, but often with the enthusiastic support of both major political parties, sometime including tax breaks for doing so. Of course, much of the working class consist of Latinos and Blacks who are disproportionally impacted by all this. Then there is the majority of the working class that is White. Hillary Clinton's Deplorables.
Personally, I do not have a problem with Christian Latinos. Why would I? I might have a problem with the fascist American Christian Nationalists, which is trying to gain more power among the elites. The pool consisting of American social, economic, and political issues can be a deep wade, and it is very different, I suspect, than anything found anywhere else despite the commonalities of American elites with the European elites or the Western elites. It is the interests of some to overly simplified the history of Western Civilization including the various nations and states within it; they strip out all the inconvenient bits and bury what remains with propaganda and lies. This is a project of modern Neoliberalism.
Let's try to tell the story a little differently: around the 1970s/80s (Vietnam war, civil unrest, communist danger everywhere) the USA/CIA thought that, since religion was the opium of the people, betting on religion was a wise move (the PMC, as you call them, has no face, and this political choice has authors and names, that's why I say USA/CIA - Europe was not so much in the game by that time, I think). Khomeini's return to Iran (as well as his exile in France) was part of that move. It wasn't so much the hippie idea of a world of peace and harmony (but the CIA has since learned how to use it, bien sur), but the deliberate desire to disturb or defeat the secular Left (particularly in the Middle East, but also in Europe).
As one with a functional brain would expect, the move got out of control. Also because the Muslim world (contrary to what your article seems to presuppose), is today a space of intelligent people and advanced technology (and who also agree that religion is an excellent instrument of control). By the way, Putin did more or less the same move in the successful transition from the USSR to Russia. As for the emigration question, one could argue that in the USA they have a Christian Latin-American problem, not a Muslim one
I am sure that the creeps in the CIA had a part, but as a American and Californian, having seen this immigration problem first hand and for forty years, I would make the Democratic and Republican Party more responsible. Both wanted to drive down the cost of labor with the destruction of the unions a nice bonus especially for the Republicans. The Democrats also believed that the new waves of immigrants would be just a Democratic as well as the previous waves had been. Greed, ambition, power, and contempt is a vicious combination.
The fact that almost nobody in the ninety percent of the economic bottom of the population wanted uncontrolled immigration, including the Latinos already here, some of which have lived in the Southwest since the sixteenth century, did not concern the proponents of immigration. There was always the cry of racism and since even the corrupt, often very illegal use, of B1 and B2 visas has been ignored much of the middle class as well as the poor and working classes have seen their income threatened if not just destroyed.
Concurrently, as all the extra workers were imported, there was the sending off of most of the United States' industry was done without the approval of the general population, but often with the enthusiastic support of both major political parties, sometime including tax breaks for doing so. Of course, much of the working class consist of Latinos and Blacks who are disproportionally impacted by all this. Then there is the majority of the working class that is White. Hillary Clinton's Deplorables.
Personally, I do not have a problem with Christian Latinos. Why would I? I might have a problem with the fascist American Christian Nationalists, which is trying to gain more power among the elites. The pool consisting of American social, economic, and political issues can be a deep wade, and it is very different, I suspect, than anything found anywhere else despite the commonalities of American elites with the European elites or the Western elites. It is the interests of some to overly simplified the history of Western Civilization including the various nations and states within it; they strip out all the inconvenient bits and bury what remains with propaganda and lies. This is a project of modern Neoliberalism.