by Paddy Vipond
http://c4ss.org/content/23289
A World Divided
Further Note (24th February 2014) I’m moving this post to the top of the Blog in view of Paddy Vipond’s answer, which I think deserves a response. His claim that everyone who objects here to open borders sounds like a racist is a very poor argument. In the first place, the word racism has so many meanings that it really has no meaning. It would help if he were a) to give his own definition of the word, and b) to show how his opponents here conform to his definition, and c) to explain what is so evil about the word as he defines it. As it stands, he is in the same position as a religious enthusiast who calls someone who practises birth control ungodly. His approach may get him a pat on the head from the ruling classes in England and America, but is no way to win an abstract argument. SIG
Note: I do not myself believe in open borders at the moment. However, there is a substantial and distinguished body of libertarian argument that does take open borders as immediately desirable. It is, therefore, the duty of the Libertarian Alliance to take account of this. SIG
After working at the University of Sussex over the summer, myself and two of my best friends embarked on an interrailing trip around Europe. The trip was a wonderful experience and a fantastic chance to visit iconic cities and locations. We managed to see, and do, so much, as is evidenced by this brilliant video my friend made of our time on the continent. As well as the memories, and the photos of our experience, the trip proved to be incredibly thought provoking. It gave me a wealth of ideas and topics which I wanted to write about. Travel really does broaden the mind and I would defy anyone to venture across Europe for a month and come back the same person as when they left. I learnt many things on the trip, and many of my beliefs were re-affirmed. None more so than the belief that this world is divided into unrepresentative and irrelevant categories.
It was in Austria, whilst staying with more friends of mine in Vienna, that it became apparent. The only divide I had with these people was that of nationality. In almost every single way we were identical. We were around the same age, we held the same interests, had the same views and beliefs, participated in the same leisure activities and were concerned about the same things. My two friends from the UK and my friends in Austria were only separated because of the land mass that they happened to have been born on. There was no difference between “British” and “Austrian”.
I try not to define myself as any nationality. I don’t believe I owe allegiance to any flag, or country in particular. I certainly don’t take pride in being a nationality, for a start I am not really sure what that even means. Does it mean that I should feel good about what other people have done? Other people that just so happened to have been born on the same land mass as me? The accusation of traitor has probably been leveled at those that have expressed similar views as these in the past. With regards to being told “you’re betraying your country”, I believe that it is an empty insult. As cliche as it sounds, I have no country. The world is my country and all of its people are my brothers and sisters. This is something I truly believe. I will not discriminate against someone due to their nationality, and I will not immediately support someone just because they are of the same nationality as me. Nationality to me is a creation. It is a concept that everyone buys into, and because of this, the concept is legitimised. In my opinion nationalities and nations are obsolete. That though, is for another article, and is another argument.
We are told, by the powers that be, that we are British, and that “we are all in this together”. Since those words were uttered it is clear that that was not the case. As “Brits” we are encouraged to get behind the nation and show our support. Whether that be in the Olympics or other sporting events, or “important” dates in the calendar, such as events involving the Royal family. Attempting to unite a nation is a senseless and pointless endeavour because despite how hard you try, you cannot tar everyone with the same brush. The diversity and differences of the people of Britain are too pronounced and too obvious to simply be covered with a label.
Globalisation has brought with it many things, both advantageous and not. One advantage is that now, more than ever, we are able to connect with other people around the world. This connection isn’t just being able to talk to them, and see them, it is also a connection which allows us to participate in one another’s lives. Whether that would be through sending money or aid, purchasing products, showing support and solidarity, or providing assistance and raising awareness. The world has become a much smaller place, and because of that we are now more easily able to identify with those that have previously been labelled as “other”. Those that politicians and the media label as foreign, or alien, are noticeably more similar to us than many of the fellow countrymen we are historically supposed to show loyalty to. My experience from living in Turkey and interrailing around Europe, has proved to me that I have more in common with my Turkish friends, my Austrian friends, my German, Greek and Cypriot friends, than I do with many of the people I share the label of “British” with. The likelihood is that this is true for you also.
The Daily Mail‘s incessant attacks on foreigners are fueled by hatred and bigotry, the victim of their attacks differs little from the average Brit. It is true, these people may have been born in Eastern Europe but that is where the differences end. They like football, they enjoy a few drinks down the local pub, they have worries about what to get their children for their birthdays, on Sunday mornings they walk their dog in the park, as Monday morning arrives, they too cannot wait until Friday. They want a good life, and a good education for their children. They want a well paid job, they want to be rewarded for their hard work, and they like their coffee black with one sugar. This man is far more likely to become your best friend than someone who was educated at Cambridge, owns three homes and works as an investment banker. Yet the foreigner is presented as a target of distrust and manipulation and is unworthy of your friendship and loyalty.
I would not say that I am a follower of Marx, or indeed Communism, in fact I am opposed to many of the ideas espoused, but I am in agreement that the world today is divided upon class rather than any other social distinction. What is paramount for citizens to understand is that class divides are far more important than divides of citizenship in determining our real interest. Nationality and patriotism are preached by governments because it is an easy way to harness support. All the tools are already in place, the government need only to ring the bell and the people come running to defend the flag. The danger for governments worldwide is of a conscious populace who realise that the elite in charge of the country are as alien to them as E.T. was to California. Class transcends borders and as such is a major threat to the established order. The thought of hundreds of millions of people uniting and working towards a common goal strikes fear into the hearts of the ruling elites. The Occupy movement clearly demonstrates that people are beginning to see past loyalties based on nationality, and are instead establishing loyalties with those of the same class across the globe.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What you are leaving out of your Lennonesque article is……Race. If you truly believe that class is more important than Race then the next trip I suggest you take is a lot closer to home. Get on the tube and go to most areas of London. Take a walk around Hoxton or Canning town and tell me why they are crime-ridden cesspits. What is the one common denominator between all these violent,high crime areas.
Actually Austria has a very strong culture – your friends must be rather unusual not care about it (most Austrians do).
As for Turkey – its fundamental diviision certainly not based on “class” – it is based on whether someone is based on whether someone is pro or anti Islamist (and the Islamist camp is itself divided between Pan Turk Islamist and Islamists who look more to the Arab world, as the present Prime Minister does).
On “class” in Marxist terms……
The central lesson of Classical Liberalism (as well as Libertarianism) is that the long term economic interests of “the rich” and “the poor” (of employers and employees) are THE SAME. The fundamental harmony of long term economic interests is the central principle of Classical Liberalism – and is what socialism (all forms of socialism – National Socialism, Fascism, Marxism and so on) denies.
The “Occupy” movement?
A vicious alliance of various forms of collectivist (Red Flag Marxists, Black Flag communal anti private property in the means of production “anarchists”, and so on) fanatically opposed to everything that libertarianism stands for.
Those who feel kinship with (for example) “Occupy Oakland” with the thugs who spend their time smashing, burning and raping, are strange folk – strange indeed.
One might as well feel kinship with the Teacher Unions (such as the Chicago Teacher Unions – which are the heart of the “Occupy” movement in the city) who spend their time looting the taxpayers and betraying the children in their charge – via their opposition to “traditional” teaching methods (i.e. any real teaching at all).
Tired – more typing mistakes than normal.
But it is depressing to see the Occupy thugs still being presented as libertarians here.
What is next?
That great libertarian thinker Castro?
Or perhaps the new Mayor of New York (a Castro fan and a supporter of the New York Occupy movement) will be invited to write an article on why higher taxes and more regulations are what freedom is about.
Open Borders?
Not for these people – no.
Keep them out (or kick them out – if they are already here, after all “I am not British”, well you should not be in Britain then).
We have enough criminal thugs (which is what “Occupy” actually are) already.
Should people who openly boast that they have no loyalty to this country and admit they are part of vicious criminal gangs (in this case “Occupy”, but it could be the Mafia or others) be welcome to stay in Britain – should there be “open borders” for such envy ridden class war people?
It is hard to think of a good reason why the answer to that question should be “yes”?
“But I was born here” – surely that is a nationalist argument, rejected by the post?
“But I am white” – that would be a racialist argument, and I do not hold with racialism.
The former Bishop of Rochester is a brown man born in Pakistan – but he is far more of a Englishman than some blond haired, blue eyed thug who declares that Britain (and all nations) should be destroyed, and spends his time smashing the widows of the local “Starbucks” on the grounds that some of the shareholders of this company have more money that him.
The article above is wrong (to me) on so many levels I cannot even begin to know where to start.
It skips between foreign experiences (and foreign lands) and to matters here as though they are one and the same thing.
It throws incoherent things together that contradict each other (that we are all the same, but at the same time we have differences and “diversity”!).
It hints that peoples and races are all the same, that religious natures are swappable, that we can be all the same, that ‘class’ is more important than that of kinship and the matter of self identity.
It is the same kind of “John Lennon”‘esque Marxist bull-shine in which such things will cease to be important, where nations become irrelevant, where “people can be as one”.
What Paddy is actually advocating, through the destruction of identities, borders and ultimately races, is genocide and a lack of global diversity.
It is wicked and nihilistic in my view, not to mention a precursor for even further global governance.
It is morally and culturally relativistic too. It is quite simplistic to say the equivalent of “well, we all like a cup of tea in the morning and we all want what is best for our children, so really, we are all the same and we are all in this fight against the establishment, and we should all come together and destroy borders and boundaries in order to tackle this global elite that want…..well, no borders, no identities, no nation states!!!
(Thus doing their very bidding).
Also, there are different forms of national pride, much like there is a difference between nationalism and patriotism.
For example, a patriot is one who tends to love the organs and symbols of a country: The Queen, the Church, the Military, the “shared values” that we are told we have by the ruling elites.
It is like when some Americans defend their country and the actions of their government, no matter what. “My country, right or wrong”. It is of course idiotic and blind.
People here on this site even take umbrage on behalf of Americans when “America” is criticised – calling it “anti American”! No. It is anti the actions of what the ruling powers of America are doing! Big difference!
That is not the real essence of what a country and sense of identity is. I am a nationalist, but in no way does that mean I defend the actions of “my country” when it comes to what is done in the name of it by the ruling elements or on the behalf of international bodies.
Nor does it mean I “hate” or “loathe” or otherwise “distrust” the “Johnny foreigner” or consider them not to have similar desires and aspirations as human beings.
Separate, but treated equal would be my motto I suppose rather than incur the stepping stones for further global governance and the ethnocide of nationalities (and the genocide of the White race in particular) by tearing down borders and giving free settlement to anybody who wants it.
The article says ….”Yet the foreigner is presented as a target of distrust and manipulation and is unworthy of your friendship and loyalty”.
Wrong. The foreigner is presented as a process of the things I allude to above. They are presented as a danger to the survival of our country as we have known it and how we may want it to be in the future. Quite rightly too.
The Roma issue is quite strong at the moment, so let us use that for a moment. The daily mail has indeed been ramping up the “rhetoric” and magnifying the prices of tickets and whatever else…..
However, when, in the Daily Mail, we see articles like the one the other day about the persecution of the Roma in Romania and Bulgaria – complete with pictures of disgusting tower blocks, shoeless kids ankle deep in their own generated litter, filth and squalor……
……..when we see these same people now residing in Germany and France living the EXACT same way there and turning parts of Germany and France into same cesspits…..
……when our taxes are funding their presence here, when something like 90% of ATM machine robberies are Roma, most the beggars and homeless are Roma, when they are quite literally defecating in phone boxes as people walk past, children stealing for gang-masters, an over proportioned amount of pick pocketers stealing up to £2000 a week from our citizens and sending back to Romania to build mansion houses and furnish them……when their offspring and future offspring are to be part of the REPLACERS of our own indigenous peoples…..
…..is that really to be accepted because, hey, they want the best for their children too, and hey, the like a cup of tea in the morning like anyone else!
Is that kind of “xenophobia” not justified? Is that “fear” of large parts of Britain’s cities looking that that Romanian cesspit in 25 years time completely unjustified?
Do we British have some sort of magic powers that the rest of the world do not possess, that means it will be different for us?!
My shared sense is not only between my fellow kith and kin, but also between all other peoples kith and kin around the world who want to secure futures for their peoples in their lands and to have peace, prosperity and the sense to know that good fences make good neighbours.
We can share our dislike of what our rulers are doing, particularly with globalism, but we do not have to become globalist in order structure society against them ourselves.
I may agree that I have more in common at times with the Muslims in my town than some of my own friends. This is because the latter are into football, celebrity culture, consumerism and whatever else, whilst I know I could probably share a good conversation with the Muslims about world politics, the Middle East and the perceived threat of “World Jewry” or “Zionism”.
However, does that mean to say I should abandon my friends, my extended kith and kin, allow more Muslims into this country because on some levels we have something in common? You see, we don’t have things in common. We do not have the same aspirations and same goals for the future.
All of this individualistic, globalistic, melting pot idea that everyone can live anywhere, we are all equally interchangeable, we are all the same, that our “values” are what really matter when the chips are down, is nonsense.
But I guess this is the perverse logical evolution of Multiracial and Multicultural societies…….
…… “If people in Somalia and the Ukraine and Japan share the values of ‘tolerance’ and ‘liberal democracy’ then why can’t they be declared British in Somalia, Ukraine and Japan? Is it just by matter of geography! How outrageous and chauvinistic! We must abolish these borders and categories at once!”
It really is very simple.
The author of the post (whoever he is behind the false name he uses here) claims that most people are basically libertarian in their attitudes (regardless of their nationality or race) and, therefore, should be allowed to come in to this country – if they want to do so.
However, he also makes it clear that he is a supporter of the rabidly collectivist “Occupy” movement and of class war blame-the-rich envy politics generally. In short that he is an enemy of the core message of both Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism – the harmony of the long term economic interests of “the rich ” and “the poor” , employers and employees.
In short he (the author of the post) is not the sort of person who should be welcomed in. And if his “friends around the world” are like him, they should not be welcomed in either.
A practical example.
It is not the brown skins or the dark eyes that are the problem with Hispanic illegal immigrants into the United States.
The problem is their “Social Justice”, “Liberation Theology” political and cultural principles (beliefs). As shown by (for example) the recent Pew Research Centre study of them – and the Pew Research Centre is hardly a conservative outfit.
How can someone give their loyalty to the Constitution of the United States if their inner most beliefs are radically in conflict with the limited government vision of the Bill of Rights?
Justice Peirce Butler (famous as the only dissenter in the obscene “Buck V Bell” judgement) wrote the judgement (way back in the 1920s) expelling a man back to Europe.
The defence argued that the man had been legally admitted to the United States – but it was shown that when he swore loyalty to the Constitution of the United States he swore falsely (this was not done by “making a widow into his soul” – his own statements convicted him) he was no patriot – he was an enemy who falsely pretended to be a friend (indeed swore loyalty) in order to get through the castle gates.
There is no obligation in libertarianism to admit enemies – to welcome those who come to destroy.
Libertarianism is not a suicide pact. The right of self defence (for example by keeping out enemies – such as “Occupy” types or Islamists) is not rejected.
Nice to see this received some attention.
I don’t plan on turning this into a debate so I shall only say a few words.
Firstly I must say I am NOT a libertarian. In fact I oppose much of what it stands for so that is probably why people have taken offence to this piece.
@Roy – I can’t see how race has anything to do with it. Even with your comment I still don’t. It has an air of racism about it.
Lennon-esque is more a compliment than an insult.
@Paul Marks – the interests of the poor and the rich are not the same.
And exaggeration will get you nowhere “Those who feel kinship with (for example) “Occupy Oakland” with the thugs who spend their time smashing, burning and raping”.
And I am very much in support of Teachers Unions. I am in support of all Unions.
Every comment on here has an air of racism. An undertone of prejudice. I am not going to justify these with an argument or a debate. Just reading what you type disgusts me a little.
@Concerned Briton – “What Paddy is actually advocating, through the destruction of identities, borders and ultimately races, is genocide” – this statement is utterly ridiculous. As is this “the genocide of the White race in particular) by tearing down borders and giving free settlement to anybody who wants it”.
And I fail to see how a promotion of Anarchy will result in “further global governance”. I am not advocating either and I think you are just reading what you want to read, projecting your own insecure, racist ideas on to the text.
The Roma people are living similar existences in each countries because they are treated the same in each. Not because their actions are inherently pathetic and miserable. Government policy and local prejudice means that travelling Roma will always be thrown to the bottom of the scrapheap and when they are there there will be no way of getting out of it. Seeing as they are stuck, they are then targeted “look at the, look how disgusting they are”. These people need help rather than further ridicule.
“……when our taxes are funding their presence here, when something like 90% of ATM machine robberies are Roma, most the beggars and homeless are Roma, when they are quite literally defecating in phone boxes as people walk past, children stealing for gang-masters, an over proportioned amount of pick pocketers stealing up to £2000 a week from our citizens and sending back to Romania to build mansion houses and furnish them……when their offspring and future offspring are to be part of the REPLACERS of our own indigenous peoples…..” – Ridiculous once more. You are a very hate filled person, and you have my sympathy.
“good fences make good neighbours” – do they? Really? The Berlin wall? The wall dividing Mexico and USA? The wall dividing Cyprus? The wall in between North and South Korea? The Israeli-Apartheid wall in Palestine? Are all these good neighbours? Didn’t think so.
Let us look at the wall between Wales and England, they get along alright, oh wait, there isn’t one. OK, Holland and Belgium… no. Portugal and Spain. no… I see a pattern emerging here.
@Paul Marks – “The author of the post (whoever he is behind the false name he uses here)” – this is perhaps my favourite comment of yours. I had no idea my name was false, and that I was hiding behind it. I do apologise.
I wouldn’t call advocating a more equal and fair society “envy politics”. 85 people own half the worlds wealth… is that fair? I don’t think so. Perhaps you do. But if you do, then I encourage you to start re-evaluating your beliefs and ideas.
You are correct when you say I am an enemy of Libertarianism though. I cant abide it. I despise it. And I would rather pour vinegar into my pupils before being “welcomed in”.
“This statement is utterly ridiculous”……
Maybe you would like to explain to me as to why the statement is ridiculous, instead of just removing yourself from it.
This may mean you having to actually think through to the ultimate conclusions of your open border positions and what it would mean for the composition, security and harmony of the world.
You scoff at the good fences make good neighbours line, but how have multiracial and multiethnic/multifaith nations and constructed nations tended to pan out? Do I really need to start a list of my own?
Are you trying to suggest that differing peoples who share the same landmass have all historically lived in perpetual harmony and that such societies are ideal examples of peace and long term success?!
You may not care about the racial or ethnic dynamics in the future, but that does not necessarily mean that everybody else does not care about it or should not care about it. It certainly does not mean what I suggest is “utterly ridiculous”.
When I talk of genocide, I am not talking about guns, tanks, starvations.
I am talking about the obliteration of nationhood, of identities, of the indigenous peoples of those nations (via the free movement importation of others).
In the case of European nations and peoples, their ultimate removal from planet Earth. This will be done via people such as yourself, who are advocating the bringing about of conditions of life in which they cannot survive!
The European/White/Caucasian demographic worldwide is somewhere between 8% and 10% and declining. Only around 2% of that figure are women of child rearing capabilities.
In almost all our historic Western European homelands and outposts (such as America and Australia) we are due to be minorities sometime around the middle of this century and will certainly so by the end of the century.
France, Germany, Italy, it does not matter where – the trends and trajectories are going the same direction.
I would like you to prove to me that this is not the case, I really would.
In England, the indigenous inhabitants are already a minority in three major cities – and numerous more large towns and cities are also going to be this way by the end of this decade. Manchester is one example that is expected to tip by 2020.
Again, you may not care a jot. But that is not to say that the eventuality of there being absolutely no whites (or extremely marginal numbers) in England, in centuries to come, is an “utterly ridiculous” thing to suggest.
The birth ratio and figures of demographic trends/dynamics are already sealing that ultimate fate for this country, England. Am I right or am I wrong? Irrelevant of whether you care or not, is what I say likely to be true on these trends – or not?
In general, given this scenario, maybe you would therefore like to tell me how open borders, particularly between the present affluent ‘White’ Western nations and the rest of the world which happens not to be white, will NOT lead to trends and situations which will speed up this process and contribute to the eradication (or replacement) of European peoples in England, Western Europe, or elsewhere?
Your general attitude in the article seemed that of the typical open border advocate. I certainly see no reason as to think otherwise from your piece.
In general, to open borders advocates, the world is divided by nations and borders.
Yet seeing “that we are all the same”, that “the world is smaller”, and so on, there is therefore no real reason as to why national identities matter, why racial identities matter, why there should be “lines on a map” as borders at all.
You are effectively praising and advocating the process of globalism and the removal of differences and obstacles that have tended to keep peoples apart.
The belief seems to be that it is only some kind of ‘power structure’ that seeks to maintain such things for their own wicked ends, and that they therefore must be overthrown, perhaps by anarchy, by removing these borders, boundaries and identities to all become “one” against these governments and global elites.
I do not share that view. In fact, the global elites have openly stated (and put into operation) their desires to obliterate nations, borders, boundaries, collective identities and so on.
This is what multiracial and multi-faith and multicultural constructs are all about. This is why the EU seeks to render the nation states of Europe nonsensical and pointless by mixing it all up between nations and from without Europe.
It is why former UN spokesmen have spoken openly of their desires to smash homogeneous peoples and nations. Or do you think I am making that up too and it is “ridiculous”?
I think that your open border madness is simply helping them to create the “putty man” they desire in order to achieve their global governance.
Rootless people. Race-less people. People with no allegiances, no ties, no bonds, where people will move wherever they want like interchangeable drones – and can do so because the hosting population is likewise comprised of rootless putty people who have no reason to object, no sense of self.
That is my idea of a nightmare, let alone deplorable as it contributes to the rather sick resultant of what would be the ultimate end of Caucasian peoples in the process.
That may not be the intent on your part, but it will be the resultant of what you advocate.
(Have you any idea about the demographic trends in Africa and elsewhere compared to our own, for example?)
It is all very well having this “theory” where everybody shares values and respects “property rights” and they all become good libertarians in the process of this “system” (or “anarchy”) being in effect – but the real world does not (and will not) work that way.
So…. according to you, Roma people are somehow just mysteriously treated the same way in all the nations they ever go to and that is what leads them to be the way they are, and it is in no way of their own making and choices?
…That nations of people everywhere just happen to have the same prejudices, same gripes, same objections that ’cause’ them to be like this, which they just make up out of nowhere or ‘learn’ from the “prejudice” of others who have them in their towns and cities?
Is that what you are trying to tell me?
If so, who is being ridiculous now?!
They should not be let into this country.
The situation they have made in Germany will be repeated here, just as they have done so in France and Bulgaria and everywhere else!
Rather than try and give me platitudes about “if only we treated them better” and all other manner of liberal nonsense, show me how this situation is NOT likely going happen here and not going to develop us here!
Is there something special in the British water supplies that France, Germany and everywhere else they go and live in the world has not got? (What arrogance!)
Or is it likely that the more of them that arrive through ‘open borders’ of any sort, the worse it will be to deal with the problem and the quicker it will run the risk of happening here?
Forgive me for being cautious and pessimistic, for I have no reason to think it will be avoided – and I see no situations anywhere else in the world where the situation ends up all that different either with these particular people.
Explain to me why I ought to put up with the risk of the situation I describe happening here, just so that people like you can live out some hippy John Lennon ideal fantasy of there being no borders?!
Why should I want my children, grandchildren and their children to be living in such conditions, being around such conditions, and also be rendered an ethnic minority in their own ancestral homeland?!
Why should any SANE person, or race, wish such conditions upon themselves and why should they actually cheer that it is already transpiring?!!
Can you answer me that, other than to try and suggest it will not happen or is not happening?!
That paragraph about the Roma, which you quoted of me, is all provable.
It has been documented in crime reports, been in the mainstream press – and the parts about defecating in phone boxes was even shown on a BBC Panorama programme.
Are you suggesting I made it up or am making it up? That I exaggerate? I do not know. You picked it out for some reason, as though to suggest it was made up or far fetched.
The part about the pickpocket gangs and the money they were making, including using it to fund building mansions back in Romania, was shown on a recent documentary uncovering the world of Pickpockets in this country.
I don’t see why I ought to spend hours of my time finding you all the evidence for my criticism of the Roma (in this case example), but I could provide it if I was of the mind to do so.
You suggest that I “hate” and am “hate filled”. Well, here we may at last agree!
You are damned right I am a “hate filled” person!
The problem for you is that I do not “Hate” other races, other nationalities, I don’t hate the Roma, or any body else.
No, my hatred is for the way this country is going, what it means for the future of the indigenous population and my wider racial group in the future.
My hatred is for the government who has allowed it – and open borders fools like yourselves who seek to usher it on even further and even quicker, no matter whether it be Roma or Somalians or anybody else.
That is where my hatred lay – In the “situation” that is being brought about.
I would suggest that survival and prosperity for the future is a normal desire to any reproducing organism and any sane and healthy society. It is surely those who seek to bring on their own demise and replacement who are the questionable ones.
The Socialist Myth of the Greedy Banker & the Gold Standard
http://iakal.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/the-socialist-myth-of-the-greedy-banker-the-gold-standard/
Dear Paddy,
Unlike many denizens of this blog, I am sympathetic to most of what you write in your essay. (Though rather less so to some of what you put in your later comment; but no two people can agree on everything).
Last August, I myself wrote on this blog an essay against borders:
http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/in-defence-of-open-borders/
You might like to take a look at that. I hope it will demonstrate to you that not all of us “libertarians” are far-right conservatives. (Some of the comments are quite fun, too).
You probably feel, from the reactions you have had here, that you have put your head inside a lion’s mouth. To which I say, join the club. It’s a good learning experience.
And if a libertarian may offer friendly advice to someone who has just declared himself an “enemy,” I’d say: Keep thinking for yourself. Keep evolving your ideas. And keep trying them out on others who may (or may not) be receptive to them.
Cheers,
Neil
I repeat – the author of the original post is a self confessed “Occupy” supporter, i.e. an aggressor (someone who seeks to attack large scale private property in the means of production, distribution and exchange in the name of “Social Justice”).
The West has quite enough people who (falsely) blame everything on “the rich” and “the corporations” as it is, quite enough people who demand that violence should be used against people for the terrible “crime” of being rich. We do not need to import more “Social Justice” aggressors from other countries.
if someone wants to work and admires those who built up large scale manufacturing enterprises (for example Jon Huntsman) – that is one thing.
But if someone is envy filled “Social Justice” type who wishes to use violence to rob other people (in the name of a “right” to welfare, housing and so on). That is something quite different.
We have quite enough of the latter sort of people already – we do not need to import more.
There is also the matter of LOYALITY – to what is someone loyal?
The ex Bishop of Rochester has a brown skin and was born and brought up in Pakistan – he is also a loyal Englishman.
But what of his former neighbours – those of them who believe that all non Muslims should be exterminated or enslaved?
A political theory that can make a distinction between Bishop Ali and a Jihadist (that has an “open door” to both) is useless.
it (an open door to everyone – including enemies) is not a political philosophy.
It is a suicide note.
Brief historical note……
For more than a thousand years (from the 7th century to the 19th century) Europe came under repeated Islamic attack – and the ideology of many (although not all) of the followers of Mohammed has not changed, they still seek to be like him (look up his life – his deeds).
The lack of historical awareness of the “Open The Gates To Everyone” crowd is astonishing.
There is a reason why towns historically had walls and gates.
If you refuse to learn the reason – you are going to EXPERIENCE the reason.
It will be a terminal experience.
Neil Lock appears to be the only sane one here