Borders, Steyn, Carlson, Coulter vs Biden, Titanic, 747

[August1991]

I was thinking about this radical American idea.

With the 747 and nowadays its better variants, even ordinary people like me can travel across oceans.

=====

In such a world, where anyone in the world can be wherever they want to be, what is America?

IMHO, America is its Constitution.

Biden and the Democrats are correct. It has nothing to do with "replacement theory". Nowadays, people are free to travel

=====

As a Canadian, I note that it is very cold in January. And as a Quebecer, c'est mieux si tu parles bien le français.

 

[Nationalist]

Not everyone can afford to fly. Not everyone wants to fly. Not everyone wants to see the world. 

Many love their nations and have no desire to explore outside its borders. But when you remove those borders, you begin to change a homeland that so many cherish just as it is.

It sounds like you'd want to remove those borders. No nations. Just a globe of people able to live freely wherever they want.

Good for some...shitty for nations like the USA, Canada, and Western Europe.

[Michael Hardner]

Nations are a newish construct.  

Some have pointed out that the fluidity of European borders and peoples were what led to its dominance.  There are many aspects to this: the ever-changing borders themselves, the idea that nations themselves only grew out of linguistic standardization around the kings of the middle period, and the dual fealty between church (Catholic, then protestant) and state which mitigated power.  If you look at it a certain way, the Europe that ascended looks like the world today, including the failed alliances, the ideology and the conflicts.

 

Today is McLuhan's 111th birthday.  His thesis was that our collective dialogue (Hegel called the public spirit the 'Geist', which is the hidden ghost that our public chattering gives the gist to) is played out on dominant media that lend themselves to how the discussion proceeds.

The era of linguistic and textual laws and rationalism has given way to electronic internet chaos.  People have been travelling across oceans for 95 years so that's not new.  What is new is when I don't know what country the person who works on my team lives in.  

That happened to me last month.  (The answer my work-mate gave was 'Ottawa' - which is a city-state belonging to a pastiche post-national collective of some kind run by the scion of a dynasty)

If you want to stop the people who are playing "countries" or "nations" like pull-toys, make a new kind of money that can only be public, and that has an expiry date, to make the wealthy "spend" it.

[Nationalist]

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Nations are a newish construct.  

Some have pointed out that the fluidity of European borders and peoples were what led to its dominance.  There are many aspects to this: the ever-changing borders themselves, the idea that nations themselves only grew out of linguistic standardization around the kings of the middle period, and the dual fealty between church (Catholic, then protestant) and state which mitigated power.  If you look at it a certain way, the Europe that ascended looks like the world today, including the failed alliances, the ideology and the conflicts.

 

Today is McLuhan's 111th birthday.  His thesis was that our collective dialogue (Hegel called the public spirit the 'Geist', which is the hidden ghost that our public chattering gives the gist to) is played out on dominant media that lend themselves to how the discussion proceeds.

The era of linguistic and textual laws and rationalism has given way to electronic internet chaos.  People have been travelling across oceans for 95 years so that's not new.  What is new is when I don't know what country the person who works on my team lives in.  

That happened to me last month.  (The answer my work-mate gave was 'Ottawa' - which is a city-state belonging to a pastiche post-national collective of some kind run by the scion of a dynasty)

If you want to stop the people who are playing "countries" or "nations" like pull-toys, make a new kind of money that can only be public, and that has an expiry date, to make the wealthy "spend" it.

England has been a country for 7 centuries. That's not "new". Its old and established.

Some may point out whatever they like. To deny nationhood today is destructive ideology that's lead us so far...to economic calamity and social chaos.

[sharkman]

The American idea was equality.  Freedom of religion.  Equality under the law.  Free speech.  The right to protect yourself with guns.  Biden stands for none of this.  None of it.  Good thing that the SCOTUS now does.

People get way too philosophical about this and over think it.  

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

1. England has been a country for 7 centuries. That's not "new". Its old and established.

2. Some may point out whatever they like. To deny nationhood today is destructive ideology that's lead us so far...to economic calamity and social chaos.

1. Counter examples are a good thing.  If I knew more about UK history I could comment more.

2. What is the role of the multinational corporation in the aforementioned ideology and how do we mitigate that?

[Michael Hardner]

Interesting read:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_national_identity

[Michael Hardner]

Some points:

-Union Act was 1707

-Nationalism is described as layered or multicultural

-inextractable from religion, unlike the continent 

[Yzermandius19]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

England has been a country for 7 centuries. That's not "new". Its old and established.

Some may point out whatever they like. To deny nationhood today is destructive ideology that's lead us so far...to economic calamity and social chaos.

country and nation are not the same thing

nations were invented in 1648, with the treaty of Westphalia

someone claiming to be a Nationalist, doesn't even know what a nation is or where they come from

oh the irony

Edited July 21, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Counter examples are a good thing.  If I knew more about UK history I could comment more.

2. What is the role of the multinational corporation in the aforementioned ideology and how do we mitigate that?

2. Well...Disney is a multi-national. They gave their lunch to China a long time ago.  Nike, the NBA, Twitter, Google, etc...etc...etc... How do we mitigate? For manufacturers, you tariff the hell outta them until they make the products here. For internet companies, you force them to be responsible for their content.

That's a good start I think.

[Nationalist]

11 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

country and nation are not the same thing

nations were invented in 1648, with the treaty of Westphalia

someone claiming to be a Nationalist, doesn't even know what a nation is or where they come from

oh the irony

You took 2 minutes out of your day to be a pompous ass?

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

1. For manufacturers, you tariff the hell outta them until they make the products here.

2. For internet companies, you force them to be responsible for their content.

1. The boom that ended with Covid relied on cheaper goods, so the economics of a new protectionism might not work... at all.

2. Intriguing... Can you give an example?

[Nationalist]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. The boom that ended with Covid relied on cheaper goods, so the economics of a new protectionism might not work... at all.

2. Intriguing... Can you give an example?

1. Optimum word..."might".

2. There's a title...I can't recall the number...that the government has given them which protects them from responsibility. Remove it.

[Yzermandius19]

9 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

You took 2 minutes out of your day to be a pompous ass?

Pompey the Great was pretty bad ass

thanks for the compliment

ha ha

I can do this all night 

[WestCanMan]

23 hours ago, August1991 said:

1) Biden and the Democrats are correct.

2) It has nothing to do with "replacement theory".

3) Nowadays, people are free to travel

1) They're trying to bring in cheap labour for their own personal gain, and they think that they're importing Dem voters. It's supposed to be a win-win for them, but latinos actually hate Biden.

2) That's correct: the open border has everything to do with cheap labour and votes for the Dems. 

3) You're not talking about travel, you're talking about moving to a foreign country and taking up residence. That's emigration. 

From a pie in the sky POV it may seem like allowing millions of people across the border every year is just neighbourly, but it's like the argument that went to court in BC here over a decade ago, when some Indo-Canadian developers tried to say that not allowing monster homes to be built on any lot, anywhere in BC was discriminatory. It's just a myopic POV. Infrastructure has to precede development. Schools, water mains, sewage systems, hospitals, transportation corridors, the power grid, etc all need to be beefed up in advance of development on a major scale. You can't just quadruple the number of bathroom fixtures and electric outlets in a neighbourhood without major consequences. You also can't just add 2M poor people to the population every year and hope that no one ends up homeless. 

Right after the government's duty to provide safety for it's citizens comes the duty to protect their way of life and standard of living. The last part may sound trivial but it's not. Basically everything that politicians promise their constituents is related to standard of living. 

So, does the open borders policy protect the standard of living of America's poorest people? You know, the ones who the Dems pretend to care for? Not at all. It's almost a war on them. Illegal immigrants compete for starter jobs, compete for low-income housing, they bring drugs and crime to the poorest neighbourhoods, they overcrowd schools, etc. 

If you were a single mom living in the southern US and looking for work so that you can stay in your home, you'd see the incoming horde as a direct threat to your entire way of life. Being a homeless mom isn't an option. Prostitution is. Selling drugs is. Marrying a violent drunk with a job is. 

[August1991]

On 7/21/2022 at 8:06 AM, Nationalist said:

Not everyone can afford to fly.

....

Disagree. Check out the cost of an air ticket (in weekly wage) for someone in India. Or even Kenya. 

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Disagree. Check out the cost of an air ticket (in weekly wage) for someone in India. Or even Kenya. 

add that to their other weekly expenses they can't afford to do without though

it's becoming more affordable, but it still isn't so cheap that anyone can afford it

Edited July 23, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[August1991]

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

1) They're trying to bring in cheap labour for their own personal gain, and they think that they're importing Dem voters. It's supposed to be a win-win for them, but latinos actually hate Biden.

2) That's correct: the open border has everything to do with cheap labour and votes for the Dems. 

3) You're not talking about travel, you're talking about moving to a foreign country and taking up residence. That's emigration. 

.....

WestCanMan, you get my point and you also miss it.

We cannot stop these people coming here.

Iceland and Japan can maybe do this - they're islands. Norway and Quebec can do this through language and a colder climate. 

=====

When these people are here, what happens?

I like the US Constitution response.

Edited July 23, 2022 by August1991

[WestCanMan]

10 hours ago, August1991 said:

WestCanMan, you get my point and you also miss it.

We cannot stop these people coming here.

Iceland and Japan can maybe do this - they're islands. Norway and Quebec can do this through language and a colder climate. 

=====

When these people are here, what happens?

I like the US Constitution response.

A wall, combined with enforcement of existing laws, can bring illegal immigration down to a minimal level.

The Dems know these things, that's why they don't want a wall and they openly advertise the fact that they're not stopping illegals from coming in and they're not kicking them out. 

Their plan to "fight illegal immigration" by forgoing a wall "because it's racist", and to just use more border agents, dogs, drones, etc was never intended to work. Of course it would be more expensive, lead to a massive increase in border incidents, detainees and legal proceedings. 

The Dems basically said "you can't come here, but if you do you get free ice cream." That's not exactly open to interpretation, it means "C'mon in!"

[suds]

Open borders and the welfare state cannot co-exist without serious detriment to the welfare state. Open borders reduces jobs, wages, and thus living standards, to those of us who can least deal with all the social upheaval. Not long ago the great socialist Bernie Sanders was dead set against open borders for those very reasons. Now he's all for it. If the idea is to create a fairer world, a world where wealth was distributed more equally amongst nations, then perhaps this is the way to do it. The wealthy don't care as they own property and mansions all over the world. They can choose to live wherever they want.

[August1991]

On 7/23/2022 at 10:39 AM, WestCanMan said:

A wall, combined with enforcement of existing laws, can bring illegal immigration down to a minimal level.

....

Define "minimal". Anyway, there is a far broader elephant in the room.

Kids are not born with the ability to put forks on tables.

[August1991]

11 hours ago, suds said:

Open borders and the welfare state cannot co-exist without serious detriment to the welfare state. Open borders reduces jobs, wages, and thus living standards....

I'll take your second point first.

1. Immigration does not reduce living standards. (How does more choice make you more poor? suds, you have a victim/zero-sum thinking: "More people like me here will make me poor.")

2. You are correct about the welfare state: Our Canadian health system, for example, is only barely sustainable because it is delivered by each province - in Quebec, as you can imagine, we have increasingly strict rules about access. (Obamacare foolishly created broad federal, Soviet rules - it might have worked with Romney's system in Massachusetts).

Edited July 25, 2022 by August1991

[August1991]

Let me add this minor "woke" point:

When POC live abroad, they are "immigrants".

When privileged white westerners live abroad, they are "expats".

=====

Whether immigrants or expats, people are travelling, crossing borders

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, August1991 said:

Let me add this minor "woke" point:

When POC live abroad, they are "immigrants".

When privileged white westerners live abroad, they are "expats".

=====

Whether immigrants or expats, people are travelling, crossing borders

Cool. Word games. Let me try.

When POC riot, burn down government buildings and kill people, they are "peaceful protesters".

When caucasians parade about in government buildings expressing their grievances, they are "insurrectionists".

This is a fun game. Lemme try again. 

When a person understands science and sees new viruses for what they really are, they are "rational".

When a person thinks the same virus is gonna kill us all, they are "Tweenkies".

This really is fun...

Edited July 25, 2022 by Nationalist

[WestCanMan]

10 hours ago, August1991 said:

Define "minimal". Anyway, there is a far broader elephant in the room.

Kids are not born with the ability to put forks on tables.

Like in the tens of thousands per month trying to enter, with most of them unsuccessful or returned, vs hundreds of thousands per month successfully crossing with almost none returned.

Fish aren't born with the ability to ride bikes.