The idea behind globalism is to eventually eliminate borders and differences between everyone. It’s the fulfilment of the extremely leftist idea that there is no inherent difference between people, and that given particular circumstances, all people will follow a particular of action. The thinking goes that because this is true, the way to make everyone equal is to universalise circumstances. That means creating free access to everything, for everyone.
Which means this whole idea of borders? It has got to go. It’s just a relic. An idea of the past, when humans were brutish, racist, Hobbsian creatures, selfishly hoarding their circumstances behind their borders.
Not like now. Look at how enlightened we are. We made the Internet. We can all read. We have schools and medical care and things that nobody has to pay for because they’re human rights and therefore are universal.
So, okay. Where do you even start?
The fact is that this idea is utterly ridiculous. If you were to make the claim that those things are universal human rights, you’d have to make some kind of argument as to why they don’t actually exist anywhere but in the West. The reason they can exist in the West?
We have borders.
We don’t just let people in who can then make use of all the systemic benefits that we, as Canadians, have created over the course of a hundred and sixty-or-so years. If we did that, well, how could we pay for them?
Everyone knows the Canadian healthcare system is vastly overstressed. Going to the hospital usually means a wait time of around three or four hours, and actually getting the procedure that you need can take months and months. Even without counting that, our healthcare quality is in total decline. Misdiagnosis is a constant, and shoddy care is ubiquitous. This isn’t because doctors and nurses don’t want to be perfect—they do. You don’t meet people more passionate about their job than nurses and doctors. The problem is that they have to obey so many administrative rules and laws about who they can help and who they have to refer, what they can and can’t do, and so on and so forth. They even have to think about what they’re allowed to do without charging people.
When you drop layer after layer after layer of complexity onto a process, you stack it higher and deeper with bullshit, as the old saying goes. This makes the process obscure, hard to control, and eventually ineffective.
So if we erased our borders and let anyone who needed help wander in to get some, what kind of stress would we be adding to our healthcare?
Now think about the same scenario, but for every public industry in Canada. Healthcare, yes, but also education, the income tax system, welfare, banks, the immigration system, police enforcement… everything. Canada is a small country and is not built for volume.
Take a look at Sweden, whose feminist cabinet more or less erased its borders and opened the country to massive en-masse immigration. It is now almost at war with itself.
So what happened recently, in Canada, to spark this discussion?
Migrants began travelling northward from the United States, across the borders in Quebec and Manitoba. They are forced here because of President Trump’s executive orders essentially frightening a lot of stupid people and sending them stampeding around like badly controlled cattle—or, alternatively, like exceedingly well-controlled and well-aimed cattle.
The United States doesn’t care where these people go anymore, as long as it’s not into the United States.
Part of conservative politics is this idea that borders matter. Nobody cares about country of origin. What they care about is that you passed the border legally, and will now willingly assimilate into the society which you have elected to join. What the border does, when you’re right-wing, is limit the benefits of a system to those who have helped to create that system, and continue to participate in its survival and nurture.
If you’re confused about this, Stefan Molyneux has a great sort of anecdotal explanation. If you think back to frontier days, especially in northern areas like Russia or Canada or Scandinavia, you got winters. And not like, winters where it sometimes clouds up and rains. Winters where the ground freezes so hard that it rivals cement for strength.
In those winters, you have to have something to eat. All winter. So each farm built a stock across seeding and planting and harvest seasons—maybe you’ve heard of winter stores?—and that had to last you and your family until you could start to grow things again.
So what happens if a family member is particularly useless, or didn’t help with the planting and harvesting and whatnot? When things get tight, they’re first to lose out on rations. So that’s one way that conservatives think. If you aren’t supporting the cause all the way through, you’re going to benefit a lot less from the results of the cause.
Now what happens if someone cold and starving knocks on the house door and asks for food? Is it a great idea to give them food which potentially ends with you dying of starvation yourself before the winter ends? Or, worse, you having to watch some member of your family pass away from starvation as a result of the choices you made?
Okay. I know that any leftist reading this will make a fairness argument. They’ll claim that we in the West “have so much” and must be willing to share. The problem with leftist logic, of course, is that in cases like these, it doesn’t actually exist. That’s not a rational position, and to a conservative it’s not even tenable on moral ground. You don’t owe anybody anything who didn’t help achieve it in the first place, remember.
Leftists counter this by claiming that the sins of the past create unanswered account on the part of Western nations. Slavery is a big one that they use, and also colonialism, and the matter of the supposed genocide of the Native peoples.
The problem is that these are easily fallible arguments.
They are defeated with a simple, easy amount of research and some basic critical thinking. Here are some examples.
Everyone is descended of slaves and rape victims. Every single human being on Earth. The death count for the Muslim slave trade alone is conservatively placed at a hundred million, and that’s ignoring all the displaced people and their displaced lives. The casualties could reach billions, historically. No one is blameless, which means no special quota of justice can be demanded of anyone in particular.
Colonialism is an interesting argument. It contends that when Western Europeans arrived, things somehow became worse for the native peoples. Force was employed, that’s true. Of course, you have to start to think about what was actually going on. Was your average British citizen enslaving Indonesians? Was your average French citizen sailing over to Vietnam and beating up on Vietnamese? No. Colonialism was a function of, typically, private companies. The East India Trading Company is notorious.
Once you have an empire, politics naturally begins to take sides around it. In this case, colonialism generally won until it didn’t. The British Empire, like most empires, vanished with the First World War, but had already been in massive decline even then—its total economic output was rendered laughable in comparison to both the German and American nations. Both of those nations were, at the time, either decades old in the case of Germany, or mere centuries old in the case of America.
For reference, Briton had existed in some form since it became a Roman territory in the first century during the conquests of Claudius’s legions, who didn’t care if the native tribes had borders.
If small, private groups of people can used to slather blame across an entire ethnicity, I don’t think we really have to talk about colonialism anymore. The argument is such confused drivel, based on such generalisation that we could smugly return that not all white people wanted to colonise others. You could, if you believed stuff like that, begin to slander entire ethnicity as being guilty of racism because… one… person acted against… another… oh. We do do that, don’t we.
Life comes at you fast.
The supposed genocide of the First Nations is just that: supposed. The First Nations population is actually much larger today than it has ever been recorded. That is not a characteristic of genocide, as it is normally defined. What was attempted against the First Nations was actually forced assimilation, and it’s something you do if you’re any other great empire which has appeared in history—from the Egyptians to the Assyrians to the Persians to the Hellenes (Greeks) to the Romans to everyone else you’ve ever heard of.
Atrocious? Sure, if you happened to be First Nations. The problem with forced assimilation is that everyone does it. Probably, First Nations dawn-of-time people killed each other and raped each other’s’ female population to create their own offspring thereof, just like everyone else has always done.
History’s pages are often mentioned as being blood-spattered, but rarely do we point out that they are also drenched in copious amounts of genital fluid. If you think that Native Americans are blameless of crime, you’re ignoring the massive amounts of inter-tribal warfare, as well as the organised and massively effective attacks on white settlers which lasted until the Apaches under Geronimo were finally eliminated in the nineteenth century.
As far as the… plague blankets… go? There’s a considerable argument to be made that we had so little understanding of pathology in those days that we still believed God inflicted us with illness. It’s very difficult to try to claim that the “plague blankets” were a purposeful affliction delivered unto the midst of the First Nations people, though I understand there are a few out-of-context quotes taken from letters of the period which hint at this.
Again, you can’t localise blame if everyone is historically guilty of every crime you can imagine. It wouldn’t be fair. Right, liberals?
Those are just sample arguments. There are deeper ones, and genetic ones, and other ones. The idea behind having knowledge is being able to contextualise it. Saying that it “isn’t fair” doesn’t do anything. It’s not an argument grounded in history and therefore context, and it doesn’t have a useful terminal end that people can focus on the way that borders do.
What do I mean by a useful terminal end?
So, Marine Le Pen, earlier this week, refused to wear a Muslim headscarf in order to attend a meeting with the Lebanese Grand Mufti. Marine Le Pen, of course, is a French woman who is not a Muslim.
She said, “I will not cover myself.”
I read a bunch of arguments on the Internet. That’s normally a bad idea (unless you’re here, or listening to Ann Coulter, or Mike Cernovich, or Mike Tracey, or Scott Adams, or Gwynne Dyer, and so forth) but the content was very illustrative of the divide I’m trying to describe in this discussion about borders.
Why did she refuse to wear the headscarf? Opinions range. I personally think it was done for image. We’ve all seen the pictures of the feminist Swedish governmental staff wearing the scarves to meet with Iranian diplomats. We’ve also seen those brutal pictures of Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario, done up in a hijab and basically totally ignored by Muslims even while she was trying to deliver a speech.
Marine Le Pen simply understands about power. Power has a terminal end. She is not there to promote Muslim power. Marine Le Pen exists to promote Frankish power. Her every action is to attempt to enhance the power of the borders of France, both physical and mental.
Her action is the result of a border, both in the physical world and therefore also in the mental and emotional world. Her act inflames the passions of people who live inside French borders and wish to see those borders enforced and enhanced, because they want to benefit from the systems they and their ancestors have built to do just that, rather than watching all their resources drain into migrant camps.
To her, this is a useful terminal end. It means that no compromise will be made. That the French will do French things, and people who don’t like it can stay in Lebanon or wherever. This is a classic conservative move, and it shows all her people that Marine Le Pen’s terminal useful end is to empower the French.
Kathleen Wynne, on the other hand, sitting on a chair in an ignored corner of a mosque, looks like she’s desperate to give Islam all the power it wants as long as nobody calls her an “Islamophobe.” It wouldn’t be fair to call her that because she’s worn a hijab before, you see.
These images are massively contradictory, and they depend on what you think about borders.
I mentioned I looked at some arguments on the Internet. They went like this:
Your conservative (for lack of a better word) was ecstatic that Le Pen had walked away from the headscarf. Because that’s French!
Your liberal (for lack of a better word) was appalled. It’s their custom!
I read a centrist who was conflicted. They mentioned that Muslims have to follow our rules in our country, so why was it okay for Marine Le Pen to flagrantly disobey the dictates of Allah in a mosque?
Put simply, Marine Le Pen does not need to be in the mosque. The mosque needs Marine Le Pen to affirm it, rather than the other way around. All the mechanics of our world are driven by necessity, and France could easily go without organised religion at all. It is a secular hierarchy with a massive economy—second to Germany alone in the EU—and has the power to change the nature of geopolitics on Earth.
Finite resources are the very roots of our world, and power is among them. There’s only so much to go around. The conservative conception of the world does not actually have much room for religion in the affairs of the state. Don’t get me wrong, it likes religion—but mostly as something to do on Sundays. Conservatives like solid rules and predictability, and there isn’t much that’s more solid or predictable or full of rules than religions
I might not have mentioned this, but Marine Le Pen is the frontrunner for the presidential elections that happen in France in September. Her base is hard-right, and she is a populist. Does that remind you of anybody who might have just won the presidency in the United States? These people are big on borders, and if France decides she has had enough of being violated by migrant populations, she will elect Marine Le Pen to eject them. Where will they go? Probably to Scandinavia and Germany, who will then proceed to elect people who like borders and eject them from there too.
Look at Sweden for an example of how ignoring borders actually works. Sweden is now the rape capital of the planet, and is experiencing a set of revolts that would prelude a civil war anywhere else.
The problem with the concept of ignoring borders is that it begins with the supposition that we are all equal as human beings. If we take the migrant populations as evidence, we can see that we’re not—when migrants enter society, they provably create (@LaurenSouthern) no-go zones where Sharia law rules, crime and rape are rampant, and there start to be clashes with civil authority.
Therefore, the problem with ignoring borders, in this case, is that most if not all Western countries would actually experience a huge drop in quality of life to become equal with the balance of humanity.
I mentioned that necessity drives our world? I have mentioned in the past that the strongest tribes tend to hold on to the most resources in a world where those resources are finite? Did I mention that our society, even as it is, has reached negative values? Canada has major national debts, huge unfunded liabilities and no answers for any of it.
We are not rich. We can’t share what we have, because we have nothing.
As migrants begin to march across our borders, I urge everyone who will read this to understand that we can’t afford to be charitable. Our homestead already sports a bunch of starving people, and we can’t be giving up our winter stores to foreigners because they look hungry.
The average Canadian, today, is experiencing such a huge cost-of-living surge which is the typical result of socialism that we generate two and a half dollars in debt for every dollar earned. We have entire generations which can’t afford real-estate because they can’t get meaningful jobs, because there are no meaningful jobs left.
We really have to think about what our borders mean to us, and begin to really analyse and talk about why “fairness” might not be the argument which is going to help us the most anymore.
It behooves us to remember that necessity drives human existence through the bloody pages of its history, past and future. Necessity is economic, and always has been. You have to be able to eat. You have to still be alive to help other people.
The biggest problem with the lack of borders argument is a cost-benefit analysis. Who does it help? Who doesn’t it help? What do we get? What do we lose?
Yes, “we.” You can do all the mental gymnastics that you want to, but you can’t escape the solid, concrete fact that some people have paid into a system, and some people haven’t. If reciprocity is the kernel of justice, it is only just for people who have paid into a system to receive the benefits of that system.
That is the reason we build borders. Build walls. It isn’t just that raiders used to approach with fire and sword. It isn’t because other people have different customs. It isn’t that we’re scared, or can’t tolerate others, or have no interest in other viewpoints.
It’s the basic justice of economics.