Monday, 17 February 2014

Countering the Cultural Marxist 'No Borders' claims

Leading on from our 'No Borders' argument, it is important when arguing your point in public to always be likeable, non-agresssive and to empathise. Try using things like “I used to believe the stuff you believed too, but then I started asking questions instead of just following the crowd”. And “We actually agree (even if you don't) on more than we disagree.” A good one to use is to state that you agree with someone then say “but” and put the complete opposite point. This makes them think you are agreeing with them (their ego is important to them) when in fact you are destroying their argument. 

Responses to Marxist arguments #1

Marxist slogan:

“No Borders. Borders are simply man made divisions that are detrimental to human freedom.”


But surely borders are necessary to all creatures, they are not man made, they are made by nature and exist all around us, mostly for our benefit. 


“Borders are man made, they are not natural. They only exist to segregate and protect the rich countries from to poor. “


So if you don't agree with borders, then you don't agree that poor countries should have borders either, to protect them from the rich? Strange. You don't agree that Tibet should have a border? You don't think the genocide of Tibet being carried out by super rich Chinese billionaires is a crime? If there are no borders then surely any country can invade any other and take what it wants with impunity. That means the richest country would rule the world. 

Marxist (falls back on plan B without answering any of your points, as usual, repeats mantra...) 

“Borders are evil. The are just there to protect property and territory."


Not right. Borders, territory and 'property' are a basic part of natural dignity. If you take away borders you take away dignity. That would surely be vile. We all have borders. The first we call our personal space. Nobody likes it when any stranger comes into that uninvited. Beyond that we have a border called our body. Touch it and that is an assault. Are you saying that thugs should be free to assault people? That would be the rule of the violent mob. Surely you want to protect the weak? [Now using his distorted sense of righteousness against him]. So you support the rule of the violent mob? If you penetrate a person's body border, depending how it is either rape, wounding or murder. Are you justifying rape and murder? You must be. Are you saying women should not be able to object to being violated [now using his 'feminist' tendencies against him.]


“No I'm not saying that. I'm talking about 'property and territory'. 


So you agree with intimate borders. So you do not believe in 'no borders' per se, just 'property and territory borders..... And property and exclusive territory are evil? 


“Errrrr yes [Realising he is now agreeing with borders, but trying to pretend it is a misunderstanding rather than his inability to properly understand his own ideology]. 


So why is it natural for animals have a 'territory', usually their food source, which they protect if borders are not natural? Are animals capitalists who are greedy? You see if they fail to protect their territory, they lose their food source and their young die. Are you confusing greed and love? Are you advocating that animals/humans should neglect their young? I'll bet you have not just a body a territory that you object to being violated, but also a 'home' territory, where you live for instance. Do you leave all of the doors and windows open so you can be burgled? If you were burgled would you not object? [he will struggle to answer these questions so if he does not answer, answer for him]. If you got home and you found your door open, your belongings gone and some fat smelly stranger in your bed, having eaten all you food and pissed on your floor, would you not object? Of course you would. Your territory is your privacy, without privacy you have no dignity.


“I mean, like property stolen from others.” [still avoiding the points]


Good so now you agree [he doesn't as he still can't see sense, but he is now to confused to argue back, if he has not run away yet] that borders are a good thing, where they protect privacy, dignity and our children's future. Give me an example of one that does not? 

Marxist: [Now he is really stuck. He will be trying to change the argument without answering your points]

“But most borders are about protecting the property of the rich from the poor.” 


[Firstly repeat the arguments above and emphasise that he cannot argue against them, but in a way so as to make it sound that you both agree. Then move onto the 'property' thing.]
So you think that the protection of property is wrong. Presumably because as a Marxist you think 'all property is theft', as Karl Marx said? You believe that the rich get their property by exploiting the poor, and should have that property 're-distributed'? You believe that the ownership of property is wrong. 




Good. That's a nice car you drive. Give me your iPhone.

1 comment:

  1. hello!
    I've been reading you're site alot lately and i find it very mind opening.I keep sharing the site to other people in the hope that i can get the message more far.Only if we do this,there will be a solution.
    But man,it is so hard,they control everything,what can we do,what is possible to do?it's the least thing i can do,i hope more and more people will receive the messahe
    Gretings from Romania,and sorry for my poor english,keep up the good work,i enter on the site everyday to see if there is a new article!



Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...