Saturday, 15 February 2014
Only Absolute Evil Would Want 'No Borders'
No borders is a typical left wing chant used to pretend that multiculture is something which is righteous. Why does it lend a pseudo righteous legitimacy to multiculture and why do I use the word ‘pseudo’? And why does it achieve the opposite effect to the one that it projects? Why is it wrong?
Well it is like this. Firstly it goes against nature. Not just human nature but Mother nature. The major cause of the catastrophic failure of socialism has been the very fact that it presents a pseudo religious dogma which is fundamentally flawed at all levels. Unfortunately the fanatical followers of the godless religion of socialism will viciously attack anyone who points out it’s flaws. They are even starting to introduce, through ‘defamation’ and the perversely named ‘hate speech’ laws to outlaw any heresy against their fanatical godless religion. They have introduced perversely named ‘human rights’ inquisitions to ensure that all dissidents are silenced and now control the press and the media to ensure the persecution is deemed to be ‘necessary’ and right. They usually use scaremongering such as “they are Nazis and will want to kill six million Jews” or “they hate black/Asian/gay etc. to cynically manipulate gullible majority and minority groups into supporting the socialist way. They use the Stalinist doctrine of ‘no platform’ to ensure any words that might expose their lies cannot be heard.
So let’s talk about ‘no borders’ and Mother Nature. Anyone who is more than just a casual observer of nature will notice that all creatures have ‘borders’. They have territory. They will defend that territory, often with their lives. Why? Well if they lose it, not only do they die, but so does their family and often, their species. Almost all extinctions (other than climate change) on this planet have come as a result of a creature having another, more successful, or less successful but more aggressive, creature/creatures move into their territory. Territory performs two main functions in nature. Firstly it is the food source. Lose that you starve and die. Secondly it is the ‘safe haven’, the place where the creature can safely rear it’s young and protect them from outside attackers. I look into my back garden. I have a Robin Redbreast who I keep my seed feeder full for. He/She sings for me and I rather like the presence of this little creature. But I do notice that it is extremely territorial. It does not suffer the fools of the bird kingdom easily. It allows other birds transit in my garden, but that is it. But I am also wise enough to understand that it is not an ‘evil racist’ and it has no ideals on killing six million Jews. In fact Robin is actually doing something extremely selfless and is showing a form of love and duty for which we seldom credit anything in the animal/bird kingdom. Robin sings his/her little heart out because Robin is telling others to stay away. Robin fights other birds and protects the territory not out of any form of vanity, but because since time began, Robin knew that was the duty allotted. If Robin does not fulfil that duty then Robin’s gene strain will die out. His/her eggs will never hatch or even if they do, the fledglings will be dead after meeting the new predator/competitor. I choose my words very carefully. You see species do not often die out as a result of meeting predators. They more often die out as a result of failing to take the steps necessary to ward off a competitor. A predator will eat you. A competitor for your food source is at the same time far more deadly and far more stealthy. Most creatures do not realise this until it is too late. Sounds familiar? Cicero’s ‘enemy within’ and Kiplings ‘Stranger at my gate’ comes to mind.
Sing little Robin, if you love your children.
Now let us look at ‘human nature’. I remember having this conversation with a feminist who at one and the same time was advocating ‘no borders’ and protesting about men (all of us apparently) being rapists. I put it to her that perhaps she might like to review her stance on ‘no borders’. You see it’s like this. When people shout about ‘no borders’ they feel as though they are being righteous. But they are not. Far from it. They are simply demonstrating and inability to use extended logical progression. In other words they are either too stupid or too lazy (or both) to think about what they are saying. They are reciting a soundbite without any thought for the consequences of the actions required by that soundbite. A world without any borders would be a living hell. Actually we all have and all want borders. Let us look at the micro level first. All humans (all creatures) have a border around them. We tend to call it our ‘personal space/aura’ or whatever. It is an invisible border which we maintain as it is part of our dignity. Indeed borders, and the right to maintain them are one of the most fundamental rights and dignities that all creatures have, not just mankind. If someone comes into your personal space, they either do so with your express permission (friends/family etc.), your implied permission (brushing against on a busy street, bar, train etc.) or without your permission when you either remove them, get them to remove themselves, or remove yourself and your ‘aura’. In short you maintain the integrity of your ‘border’.
Taking that one step further. If the unwelcome person starts to touch you then you would seriously object, and this, depending on the touching, could even amount to an assault, violence or sexual interference. At that point our survival instinct normally kicks in and we will even respond (quite rightly) with extreme violence to protect our borders. ‘Self Defence’ is a well established principle in the law of all civilised countries. To deny self defence would be to tell people that if they are about to be raped/murdered, that they would be in the wrong to fight back. That would be perverse. Now think again about that radical feminist and just how she would react if she were walking home on her own late at night and a strange man decided to start touching her, ‘invade her borders’, in whatever way. She might want to review her ideas on ‘no borders’….. She may consider that with ‘no borders’, she would have no dignity and no integrity and no freedom at all. ‘No borders’ is a license for ever tyrant, thug and pervert to take what he or she wants. Would that feminist consider herself as being selfish for objecting to being raped or sexually assaulted? I said ‘tyrant, thug and pervert’. It is unsurprising, looking at their membership, that the left wing support ‘no borders’.
Now let’s move on from there. We will not only defend our own dignity but we will defend the dignity of those whom we love too. This usually starts with family. “Mess with my daughter…”. But this is not only by interference by assault, but by defamation, fraud, theft etc. we will (again quite rightly) defend our loved ones and we protect them from outsiders who may harm them. I say ‘may’ and again I choose my words carefully. Because we wish to protect our loved ones we err on the side of caution. That is how important the border is. We make an invisible border around them where we take no chances as to whom we let in. We will even act together as a family to defend that border. Within that border we deal with our own problems and we have confidences (secrets) and experiences which we do not disclose outside. We say ‘blood is thicker than water’, and it is. A family unit is in effect a microcosm of the nation. But surely we allow friends in I hear you say. We do, but under very strict and close conditions, often unconsciously agreed within the family unit. But if you go out for a family dinner, and a total stranger decides to come and sit at your table, he/she may be a very nice person, you may entertain them a while, but you would be a fool to let them into your family confidences, and you certainly would be unlikely to let them come home with you and live in your house and take all that you have. Your house is your family’s immediate territory. It is just a part of that ‘safe haven’. All civilised legal systems understand the concept of burglary. A dwelling and the integrity of that dwelling are essentials of basic human dignity. NOBODY enters without permission and if they do so it is an extremely serious crime. I wonder how many people who shout about ‘no borders’ would not object to being raped or burgled.
Now let us move on from there. Beyond families we have extended families and communities. In Britain up until the advent of the Windrush these communities had evolved organically and effectively the communities had become large families, with similar outlooks and functions. Neighbours looking out for each other. Marrying the girl/boy from back home. Going to the same school etc. etc. Outsiders would sometimes come in and even integrate. But never did they form their own competing communities in opposition as that was definitely NOT allowed. They would never even be close to achieving the numbers. Those who did immigrate would fit in pretty quickly. They knew the consequences of not doing so. People lived closer to nature then. They understood that forming competing communities would cause friction, tension, and eventually lead to strife. Kings have lost their crowns and even their heads for just that reason. So it was up to all to protect the border. It is estimated that Queen Elizabeth the first issued the ‘Expulsion of the Blackamores’ order as a result of there being but a handful of foreigners in the country. In those days Monarchs feared the people and were rightly cautious. It was not ‘racist’. It was simply maintaining the territory for the good of those within. The good of the people was deemed so important that absolutely no chances were taken. Those without could maintain their own territory.
So what we have now is a situation where we have a series of governments, without any democratic mandate, ensuring ‘no borders’. Our open door immigration system effectively means we have no border whatsoever. Our armed forces (whose senior officers need to face charges of treason and cowardice) are clearly being diverted in foreign wars that are of no relevance to the taxpayers at all. The first duty of a nation’s armed forces is to defend that nation’s borders, not ponce around the globe playing ‘world police’. They have failed in their duty.
And the result. “One World, living in peace….”. Wrong. I spent 16 years in Britain’s armed forces. Putting competing communities next to each other is not a recipe for peace. It is a blueprint for catastrophic strife and humanitarian disaster. It is only a matter of time. The bloody and violent process of nation building starts all over again. Human nature takes over.
The reality is that homogenous, safe, stable and monocultural societies are more peaceful, law abiding and productive. They are less dependent on others. In short, they look after each other. Anybody who wanted to destroy that homogeneity would introduce ‘no borders’ and multiculture. In short ‘multiculture’ which ‘no borders’ is designed to facilitate, was designed to fail. It is designed to destroy the peaceful, law abiding, organic natural state. The Nation. In order to create ‘globalisation’ nations have to be destroyed. When I was a child ‘wanting to rule the world’ was the aim of all tyrants. Now the evil ones have respun themselves into nice fluffy ‘one worlders’. And unwittingly, the inadequate pseudo intellectual righteousness seekers chant their mantras.
People think that if there are no nations then there will be no wars. Rubbish. Look around the globe. You do not need to be a nation to start a war. Independent nations are normally the least likely to get involved in wars. One reason that we are given for being members of the EU is that ‘it will be less likely that there will be war in Europe’….. Sounds plausible but when exposed to even the mildest logical scrutiny this is rubbish. The EU is now funding wars all around the globe. In a fit of political comedy to rival Obama’s award, it recently was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. And it is not just the EU. In fact every major catastrophic war we have been involved in, since (and including) the Crusades, has been as a result of being part of a big stupid international allegiance. From the Catholic Church, to the League of Nations and beyond. And even worse, those alliances have often led us to fight on the wrong side and support tyranny. Lives wasted in their millions. Incomprehensible misery caused by internationalism. But the ‘no borders’ lobby spout internationalism from every orifice. God help our children if they assassinate Archduke Ferdinand in some Balkan state that nobody has heard of…. Oh I forgot, they did. Internationalism murdering millions again. The fact is that nationalism has led to far less loss of life than internationalism. “Hitler” I hear you say. Well think again. You may consider that ‘Hitler’ only became a problem when he went from national socialism to international socialism. If you don’t think he was and internationalist, ask the Polish, or any of the other 32 countries he got a bit ‘international’ with. Whilst he remained a nationalist he was almost universally praised, including by Winston Churchill.
“Wars are bad because they kill people and cause misery”. I agree. But even war is not necessary for mass murder and misery. In the 20th century socialist governments around the world murdered more of their own people than were killed in all of the wars of the 20th century put together. Funnily enough the ‘no borders’ campaigners come from….socialism! Frying pan… fire….!
‘White guilt’ is often invoked in order to get us to surrender our borders and this once peaceful nation to foreigners. In other words ‘Slavery’, Colonialism etc. are used as reasons ‘we owe’ everything we have to third worlders. Again this is rubbish. Between 1700 and 1850 it is estimated that African ‘Barbary’ pirates took between 1 and 1.5 million people from the coast lines of Europe. White people taken into slavery by Asians and Africans. So when do Africans/Asians apologise to us? The fact that we are more advanced and more affluent is to do with our greater ingenuity and industriousness as a race. That is not politically ‘correct’, but true. If Africans had bothered to go out and invent machines, discover electricity, perform great works of art, great scientific discoveries and explore the world etc. then they might have caught up or even not been so far behind. Slavery and colonialism has nothing to do with our advanced state, and nothing to do with their retarded nature. Blaming the white man for being the most advanced of the races is like blaming the lion for being bigger than other cats and saying it should therefore be wiped out. And then once you have wiped out the Lion, blame the leopard. Then, and only then, when you have eventually blamed and wiped out all species on earth you will have absolute equality, where nothing exists because everything is dead. The holding of the white man, and his children guilty for the being subject to the natural process of evolution. Evolution , and nature would be perversely depicted as a crime in itself. And if slavery were anything to go by they would owe us. Anyway, the Romans took slaves from most of Europe including Iron Age Britain. But I am not going to find a Pizza joint in town, walk in and grab an Italian waiter and blame him for anything! And I don’t expect billions in foreign charity aid from Italy either. Apart from the Italian crew of a campervan touring the narrow single track roads of the Northern Highlands a few years ago, I quite like the Italians I have met. Anyway, the main difference between the white slavery of black and the black slavery of white is that white people allowed their slaves to live and fought to free them. Black people just raped and butchered their white slaves. According to a recent article in the Independent Newspaper, you can still buy a slave girl in the markets of Congo, Ivory Coast and Somalia for as little as $10. So white people should feel guilty for slavery should we?….. Just run that one by me again. Funny how they don’t teach any of that in ‘Black’ history month? We wouldn’t want Whitey getting all uppity now would we?
I could go beyond that and raise the fact that even if it were not for the black slavery of whites, then hanging a son for the sins of his father (great great great great great grandfather here) has always been abhorrent and is again the trait of a vicious tyrant. Funny how the left are adopting the traits of the vicious tyrant again. Racially inherited guilt is perhaps one of the most vile and racist concepts one can adopt. Left again.
And it all begs the question… If ‘no borders’ and multiculture is so good, then why do they have to make us feel guilty in order to bring it upon us. If ‘no borders’ is being imposed as a result of some sort of presumed guilt, then as a matter of logic it must be a punishment. The guilty are punished. So even the ‘no borders’ lobby must (if they actually had the brains to think about it) accept that ‘no borders’ is a punishment. And as a punishment it is as a matter of logic negative on those on who it is imposed.
I pity the self righteous inadequate white ‘do gooders’ who want to see their own children, grandchildren and even great grandchildren punished and disadvantaged as a result of a perceived wrong that none of them were guilty of. That is ethnomasocism. It goes beyond that and becomes child, grandchild and great grandchild abuse of the worst and most insidious sort. Unfortunately the trendy lefties are too busy congratulating themselves on how righteous they are to consider how vile they really are. Fortunately for them, they will not be around to see the suffering of their descendants.
Nations, and the borders that they require, are not the enemy of world peace, but the requirement. Borders from the micro to the macro level are one of the most basic human rights and dignities that can possibly exist. Without borders the bloody and violent process of nation forming will have to start all over again. Only absolute evil would want ‘no borders’.