Topic: Please help me understand the no border ideology - page 2. (Read 2189 times)

Generally, liberal politicians support it because first world countries will be swamped with immigrants that vote liberal, totally wiping out conservatives. Businesses support is because they can import/export more, having more work done overseas and avoid taxes. Everybody else who wants it usually either wants it because they feel bad for people in need, or they just want their liberal politicians to succeed even if it costs us jobs and security.

If we remove the border policies then there are many negative impacts that will occur. Boundaries will no longer be there and people can live anywhere and countries will have no control over taxation. Criminality will increase and since there are no borders it is hard to implement plans for welfare since people from other countries may enjoy the benefits instead of the actual occupants. Taxes will be paid by the registered occupants but will be enjoyed by itinerant people.

Ideology means the set of ideas or ideas, insights, opinions, or experiences.

Agree partially, but ultimately it's like smoking.

If a person wants to smoke they should make sure that the only people who they force their taste on are other smokers.

If a person does not want any violence, and they do not commit any violence, then they should not have violence imposed on them. But if a person looks for violence among strangers, they should find it.

In the case above, of 'native women', of course it is unbalanced, as Native women are generally very nonviolent.

The problem though is that 'violence', like 'rape', is a word that has shades of meaning. I agree with your value that violence is wrong, but it is more useful to figure out the cause than to just complain.  Hopefully as civilization progresses and terror is removed from some things then people will be able to more rationally analyze human nature, bad and good.

Violence in any form of its manifestation is wrong and, as it were, everything did not happen, this in my opinion should not happen in human society. Violence is evil, which has already become a frequent visitor to the family and home, not just the streets.

That's true certainly and it raises the issue of how the definition of rape evolves. It used to be common that when a person heard the word rape they would picture a violent struggle ending in a rape. Now there are cases like Julian Assange, accused of rape for not wearing a condom etc.

At some point the current word "rape" has to be forked into a few different words or it will be too diluted to be helpful to the most severe victims.

Regarding specifically the phrase 'native female rape', it is likely in many places that acquaintances even family are involved, but a) it is probably more common in a culture that has been crushed by another culture and b) in a lot of places there is a long term pattern of 'native women' belonging to a conquered group being abused at a high rate. That is the case with native women in the United States. Like the word 'rape', it is something that evolves. A thousand generations ago it would have been considered normal, like a natural law, that women of conquered groups have a low status in that regard. Today it is becoming less fashionable to conquer foreign groups and rape their women. At some point people will start wondering what good is an army then? But Julian Assange managed to find a 'rape victim' so there are still opportunities for rapists who do not like violence. 

This sounds like low income crime. You can't really attribute this to race or religion; these crimes exist everywhere some people have more than other people. This would be the same in the slums of Ohio, Chicago, London, hell, even North Korea.

And a staggering statistic on rape; the overwhelming majority of rape is conducted by an acquaintance. Thus would be a friend, or a neighbor, IR even a family member. Usually, not a random ass stranger. You would do more.to prevent 'native female' rape by removing said females from their communities, statistically speaking.

It means smugglers of every kind
It means people from every kind
it means trouble from every kind

It means less chance to get a job
it means over run public services
it means house prices go up
it means wages go down or stagnate
it means less chance to own a house if on the welfare
it means more chance of getting robbed
It means more chance of getting murdered
it means more chance of the native women getting raped

But other than that    everything is fine .. 

I'm against the idea. Equality is a myth, people are different, speak different languages and have different beliefs.
Now consider two things:
Some people will feel like it's their land and consider themselves natives.
There will be newcomers, migrants, that will have completely different values, unacceptable to the native population.

This will eventually lead to a segregation, with one of the communities being bound to enclosed settlements, or civil war. You just can't have open borders or people will start killing each other.

Thing like that could never live up to the idea. With the ideology like that, culture and nationality would be somewhat lost and I personally wouldn't like that. I'm not for those hippie ideas that propose that all people should and can live all together in harmony... sorry, but that's nearly impossible and I don't want to get into discussion now because I'm tired and also, everyone should be able to see why it's a stupid idea. The first thing that should come to mind is the mass immigration, just look at the immigrant "crisis" but on a whole another level where everyone from the poor countries and regions would rush to the rich ones. I've always found hippies to be stupid with the ideas.

If I was living in a barrel filled with shit in Guinea Bissau and the world's borders were thrown open, would I wait 15-30 years for my barrel of shit to dry out or move to New York tomorrow?

I'd go for NY. The average person wants it all now and why not?

That is an interesting idea, the problem it will cause for some people though is when it is taken literally.

Very primitive people often have concrete gods, solid beings that have wills, desires, everything a person has.

More developed theologies emphasize that it is a fatal mistake to describe any aspect of a spiritual thing, including the concept of 'god'. The reason being that there is the dualistic world, which is physical and includes words, and the spiritual world which is not dualistic. There are some bridges between the two, like religion, archetypes, symbols etc, but when dualism is used to describe spiritual things there are the hunters who observe quietly and learn, and the hunted, who make the noise. It's explained here https://youtu.be/I7e9vnwTjJA?t=1m1s

More spiritual wisdom at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgxGK2GOcQQ

If a person needs spiritual help they can watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73v0XWnDxK8 but do not dial the number on the screen, +1 800 433 1900 unless you have your credit card out.

I think you are right. There are many good things that people could get by creating world without borders, and maybe that is the future. If people could move freely from one place to another, that could solve a lot of difficulties for some people. But it would also mean that there would be unwanted people in some places, and it would create chaos. Some places would be overpopulated and some would be dead, with no people to live there. I am not sure if it would be good or bad, there would need to be some kind of restriction, but that is not without border than...

I perceived the power of fasting in the Bible as a result of no distraction. The isolation allows one to be closer to God, to align yourself with his will. When you are on the same path, you gain access to all of the things one needs to navigate the path

Also, substance is spiritual gravity. Mammon is all substance; our concern for our substance is what usually makes us sin. You surround yourself with substance, you suffer the woes of substance. Society hovers somewhere between spirituality and substance, a partial construct of both. It, like all things, can be a distraction.

A person should look for flaws near them, not faraway.

You want to blame "whites" for human nature that everybody has and you want to give credit to "islamic countries" likewise for human things.

The problem is not 'whites' or 'islamic', the problem is people through ignorance try to blame 'white' or 'islamic' people for flaws everybody has.

If you are going to change somebody's quotes so dramatically you should remove their name first. You can just put the word quote in blocks


Food is just one aspect of a person's lower nature. Regardless, a person has a living nature that exists in a physical form whether the person is 'alone in the wilderness', or in the middle of a crowd.

The amish, like most groups who respect nature, were persecuted out of their original locations. http://www.amishnews.com/amisharticles/fromoldtonew.htm

The amish are smart and know that the first sentence of your last paragraph is nonsense. They live healthy lives but because their ideas of health are different than the prevalent gang they are cautious regarding threats from 'opposition or punishment'. A person who "does as the Romans do" is safe in Rome. Those who try to live apart have to be careful.

Heroin / meth / etc are not healthy, but anything can be ascribed to 'spiritual forces'. Those drugs are expensive and illegal, society charges an extra price for them. In places where opium is legal but discouraged informally you see much less harm.

In our society there are much more unhealthy things than drugs, but which are not discouraged or may even be encouraged. The price for those things is not so immediate and obvious. Would you call the lack of a price imposed by society "spiritual forces working their magic"? Of course not. You are confusing government with some deity.

Any global ideology that relates to politics from my own point of view will not work. Other areas might work such as security or finance or accounts but  not politics because how do we even start from the majority of Whites that are racist not even considering the people from the Islamic countries, not even countries that are against the West with everything within them among other factors that will negate such movement.

In the name of globalization.. somewhere in the future, maybe a hundred years, maybe a thousand, the world will almost definitely be globalized and will have much less restrictions.

You have it backwards.

Society tries to get to where one person in the wilderness is, but society is hampered by technology and other fake appendages.

A person who leaves society does not strive to create the disease they had in society. Look at the Amish and many other very civilized groups whose laws are more natural. They don't ask for paper and they don't offer it. If our modern society were made of people who could live on their own, without gangsterism, there would not be any discussion needed.

I don't believe homogeneity would result in stagnation. Look at Japan and Korea. They are some of the most homogeneous countries around  and they are doing just fine. They managed to survive without all these multiculturalism shit.

Multiculturalism would only benefit the larger society if the minorities are willing to assimilate to the larger population. Instead, what we are seeing are ghettos. Though not necessarily bad on their own, it does lead some to feeling "different" from the society they live in. I guess Singapore have set a good example with their racial/ethnic integration policies to ensure that its Han, Malay and Indian population are  mixed together. Europeans would probably cringe at the mere mention of it though, cause you know, rights...

Open borders in western Europe used to work because despite the varying languages the people have some degree of cultural affinity with each other. Unfortunate that it was hijacked.