Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Better to have borders

You've probably seen footage of the demonstrations at U.S. airports following President Trump's temporary restriction on immigration from certain Middle-Eastern nations.

In San Francisco the demonstrators chanted for open borders and the end of nations (to be exact, their chant was "No borders. No nations.")

You might remember that it was revealed during the election campaign, via a leaked email, that Hillary Clinton likewise has dreams of open borders. She gave a speech for a Brazilian bank in which she said:
My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders

Trump's response was this:
Hillary Clinton's radical call for open borders, meaning anyone in the world can enter the United States without any limit at all, would end the United States as we know it today.

Trump is right to insist on border controls and to try to halt the shift away from nations (a shift that is underway in neighbouring Canada, where the PM, Justin Trudeau, has declared his country to be a "postnational state").

I truly hope that America does not go the same way and that Trump stands firm, despite the political pressure being raised against him.


  1. No state borders simply implies more internal borders, as we see with Muslim ghettoisation. No borders could only succeed in the case of a monoculture. The liberals make the elementary mistake of assuming that the no-borders cart will inevitably be followed by t he (secular) monoculturist horse.

    1. And it probably will be in the long term of 200-300 years. These people think way down the road and it doesn't bother them if we all have to be miserable for the foreseeable future.

    2. And it probably will be in the long term of 200-300 years. These people think way down the road

      They do think long term, and they do expect a secular monoculture of docile easily controlled consumers. They assume that Muslims will be absorbed seamlessly into that secular monoculture. Long term thinking is a good thing but when you start from false assumptions it can be a very bad thing.

      I think liberals are going to have big big problems with Muslims over the next hundred years or so. Crushing Islam will be a much tougher assignment than crushing Christianity. LIberals really do think that Islam will tamely surrender the way Christianity did.

      Up till now liberals have never come up against a determined well-organised enemy that has no intention of submitting. An enemy prepared to kill, or to die, in the defence of their faith. Liberals simply cannot imagine anyone being prepared to do that for the sake of religion.

      Liberals are already losing that war, with feminists now wearing burqas.

    3. Probably the liberals expect they will successfully use Islam as a proxy to fight their Western conservative enemies. They would then be in place to reshape whatever is left after cultural, and real, wars. Of course the Muslims believe something similar-- being in position to pick up the pieces where they have instigated conflict and destruction.

      OTH the greatest organized enemy of all may be an amoral, technocratic and atheistic hegemon that seeks to bring all religious peoples to submission or extinction. This is already the dream of many in the West.

    4. leadpb, your analysis is pretty much identical to mine.

  2. No state borders in fact models the Islamic Umma where there are no nation states. The Umma is the Dar al Islam (The Home of Islam) where all people can live so long as they are Muslims with a hierarchical structure based upon skin colour (Arabs and white Muslims having the highest status). Most of Arabia was like this until the Anglo countries created the false nation states of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, UAE etc.

    Any country with open borders will rapidly be filled with Muslims who will quickly proceed to build their social structures based upon Sharia Law.

    That means the end of Christian nationhood and that appears to be exactly what the globalists want.

  3. "No borders". Not exactly how the left is going to win back the middle ground.

    1. Is there really a true middle ground left? Maybe in more harmonious times...

  4. Mark I remember your contributions at VFR years ago but stopped reading you for awhile. Just wanted to drop a line and say you really do outstanding work. I think I stopped reading you because I imagined your site was too Australia specific for me but really your work is very relevant to me as an American.

  5. You can have no borders or you can have a welfare state but you can't have both.