“”A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many and various and powerful interests, combined into one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in the banks.” And that great humanist, Abraham Lincoln, said, just before his assassination: “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
― Jack London, The Iron Heel
A World Without Borders – Part I: A Crucible of Precariat
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”
[Note: Bear with me through the introduction. This topic is far more complicated and convoluted than the fluff pieces you’ll find in the media. You can scroll ahead to the next section (Eliminating Borders, Small and Large) if you want to get straight to the meat of the issue, but I’ve had to break this into multiple parts so as not to muddy the waters. Part 1 really only covers the broader issues. I’ll go into more detail about the methods, mechanics, and results of a borderless America and a borderless world in Part 2. As always, check my resources before dismissing the more “unbelievable” notions out of hand.]
A world without borders; no cities, no states, and no nations. This is the vision of the future incrementally being forced upon the world. For the US, it’s been going on since long before the formation of the Council on Foreign Relations. It’s been further pushed by non-profits and think tanks representing the Trilateral Commission, pushing for the North American Union, and carrying out the agenda of the United Nations. The information is out there to those who are willing to look; it’s been hidden in plain sight this whole time, yet denied out the same mouths that confess it.
It’s another front in the global war we’re embroiled in, largely without our knowledge. It’s a war fought behind the scenes, less with arms, and more with think tanks and policies; blackmail, bribery, and coercion of politicians; infiltration and indoctrination; subterfuge, subversion, and secrecy. It’s a war against the sovereignty of nations and states; against parliaments and senates; against democracy and republicanism; against liberty itself; but, most importantly, it’s a war against the unwittingly compliant 99%, who are simultaneously weapons, pawns, and victims of the plutocracy in the form of a technocracy. And the terrifyingly brilliant part of it all, is that, in our engineered distractibility and complacency, we remain largely unaware.
The above quote by Hillary Clinton—an unintended revelation of her not-so-private “private” policy—is the Utopian image of the world envisioned by the lion’s share of the ruling class. It is the Brave New World, whether we want it, need it, like it, can thrive in it, can survive in it, or not. Whether it’s a vision you support wholeheartedly, or detest as a hallmark of the Tribulations, this borderless world with its citizens united under the banner of universal government begs a slew of philosophical questions:
Is it what’s best for humanity?
At what cost?
Who has the right to decide?
Do the ends of achieving it justify the means?
Is it what’s best for the planet?
Does what’s “best” for the planet supersede the lives of men?
How many lives is it acceptable to sacrifice before the pursuit of this “balance with nature” via globalism is no longer justified?
The broader problem lies in how so many—both those in power, and those beneath its control—define morality and ethics. We live an an age of transhumanism, where science is the gauge by which we determine morality (a paradoxical scenario, given that science itself cannot define morality). The answers are found in metaphysics (masquerading as science), and its bases are as corruptible as they are arbitrary. This lack of any absolute measure of morality is a slippery slope towards a veiled religion of humanism. It’s inevitable end is a twisted union between pantheism and hedonism, where science and nature are revered as deific, and man has nothing better to do with his time outside of the pursuit of self-indulgence. Rather than being recognized as selfish in nature, this serving of the “self” is portrayed as a reward for putting those things deemed by science to be “best for mankind/the planet,” first. The end result is a universal religion of science, which instills a system of control where a slave population is kept complacent and compliant.
So, with no common basis for ethics or morality, we must rely on the arbitrary; an ever-changing social consensus, or what feels right on an individual level. This makes it exceedingly difficult to argue whether global cultural integration, wealth redistribution, and the dissolution of borders being forced on the world is either unethical or immoral, but I will nonetheless make the case that they are both. Even if all of the above is unequivocally proven to be what’s best for the world, knowing what the collateral damage is, I would argue that the few in power have no right to impose these measures on the rest of humanity without their informed consent, and without honoring the laws of every sovereign nation affected.
Eliminating Borders, Small and Large
Let’s envision this world for a moment, with emphasis on the “borderless” part, starting with America.
“… it is increasingly clear that problems like education, employment, housing and pollution of all kinds spread out over entire metropolitan areas and multi-state regions. And they simply will not be solved if Washington invests billions of shared revenue to make the ancient borders even more rigid.”
Michael Harrington, Washington Star – August 5, 1969
Say goodbye to states, because those “ancient borders” are relics of an America that no longer exists. As members of the CFR integrated with all levels of government, they found it increasingly frustrating that their think tank policies met with resistance, from the smallest of municipalities all the way to Congress. Their workaround was as ingenious as it was insidious; using dozens of UN-linked organizations, they created a foot-in-the-door for globalist policies, and have been inching it open so subtly that no one notices the mammoth that will barrel through when it’s finally pried wide. Through co-opting cities, states, and municipalities with federal funds, the wheels of a United States without States began turning. The strings attached to the constant flow of funds came in the form of policies and regulations that suited the agenda of the CFR (which was, essentially, the agenda of the UN). And once the “beneficiaries” became dependent on federal funds, they willingly handed over both power and sovereignty to keep the cash flowing. And before you balk at the sensational claim, let me give you a sneak peek at the trove of information out there that reveals this agenda (which will be discussed in detail in Part 2). Check out this New York Times article from April, designed to soften the public to an idea that’s been scoffed as mere conspiracy for decades.
While we do still have States in our Union (for the time being), their sovereignty has all but been sold. Until one day, in the near future, the question will be posited, “why do we still have states?” They’re “dinosaurs,” after all, mere fossil remains from a long gone era of American history. They’re “obsolete,” and an impediment to the progressive state our Union is working towards. This has been the stance of the CFR for over half a century, and they’ve been actively working to overcome the obstacles posed by the continued existence of states.
But what is a future Unites States without the States? One need look no further than China     . The same strategy was used there as a proof of concept. And now that it’s succeeded in the globalist’s sandbox, it’s time for the rest of the world to “progress.” If it happens that the trigger is pulled prior to global integration, we’ll be a United Regions of America. For the last half a century, the CFR and their affiliates have been building up “Megaregions” of sprawling, overlapping cities, under the guise of “central planning.” And, much the same as in China, rural populations are being herded to these highly populated, easily monitored, managed, and controlled areas. Existing cities are being transformed through subversive policies to accommodate the coming regional model. These megaregions supersede state lines, and will eventually become “self-aware” of their own significance. They’re transient clouds based on populations, productions, and infrastructure, with no fixed geographic boundaries.
We’ve seen the first signs of this agenda awakening, with the Summits of Cities, the defiance of Sanctuary Cities, the C40 group, the Strong Cities Network, the HIII, and the political leanings of indoctrinated city-dwellers. And when these Regions realize they have the lion’s share of the population, tax revenue, infrastructure, and production, they’ll begin to question why they should be accountable to the geriatric, and impotent State in which they are only partially geographically located in, since, as a Region, they stretch across state lines. Imagine the 2016 election if these Regions commanded a greater share of voting power.
With the Strong Cities Network, the Summits of Cities, and the moral high ground of Sanctuary Cities, they prepare their defiance to any authority other than the UN. With mass immigration, they build their numbers, sow unrest amidst the populace to rile their anger against the antiquated systems of government, re-educate their citizenry, and point them towards their candidate of choice. It’s a prevailing attitude we see in large cities in every State as it is; imagine how much more polarized we’ll become under the weight of these “Megaregions.”
Without States, what do we, as citizens belong to? These megaregions? Do they now issue our driver’s licenses? Our interstate (inter-region) “passports,” since drivers will soon enough be a thing of the past as driverless cars take precedence? Or does the issuing of ID’s simply become federalized (or globalized) because that’s the only “common sense” measure. That is the push, after all, to federalize/globalize what was once in the purview of local and state governments?
And what of the rural populations? What representation do they have in this world? The short answer is, will it matter? The rural areas will be a disproportionate, anomalous part of the population, undeserving of a fair say since they’re just one step above “radicals and subversives.” Until one day, when the federal government advances their plan to seize enormous swaths of land for the UN (under the guise of “environmentalism”).
These ideas are nothing new. One need go all the way back to the Nixon era to see their humble beginnings. But many of these concerns will become moot as nations begin trading their sovereignty for the security offered by the
Fourth Reich UN, or whatever their next, one-world-government incarnation will be. The financial security, and the security of a global police force will be more than enough to convince sovereign nations to sacrifice their borders, particularly in times of crisis. But it won’t be overnight. It hasn’t been overnight, and it’s been going on, inch by crooked inch, for decades. The UN will usurp what remains of the sovereignty of nations, and impose a universal set of laws, rules, regulation, taxation, and enforcement for all who come into its folds. It may well be that, after the dust has settled, we enter a new age of human enlightenment. Or, as history implies [subtext Filter: “cries out in dire warning”], the power will corrupt, and what survives of humanity will find themselves bound within a new, global slave class, with nowhere to escape, and no recourse for the wrongs perpetrated on the populace.
My contempt for the concept isn’t for the more Utopian ideals, it’s almost wholly for the methods, and because of the unwitting collateral damage that falls victim to the subversive schemes. I actually support the idea of free movement between nations (to an extent), but I’ll get into that later. It’s tough to fight against the propaganda that open borders is a humanitarian mandate without painting a larger picture. In the end, you just need to ask yourself, do the ends ever justify the means? If your answer is “yes, always,” then I can’t help you, but I’ll nonetheless pray for your all-too-mortal soul. If it’s “no, never,” then you will probably already draw the same conclusions as me. If you are like the majority of the world, and your answer is arbitrary, then you need to do some thought experiments to determine at what point you believe the ends justify the means; then you need to determine who has the right to decide that for the rest of humanity. It’s probably the most important thing you can do for yourself and your fellow man, because just about everything you will ever encounter will be affected by your stance on the matter (whether you’re aware of your own stance or not).
There’s one other observation I need to make. The globalist elite have long been proponents of population reduction world-wide, particularly in the third world. This apparent contradiction with the push to integrate all peoples in the name of humanitarianism raises all sorts of red flags, and strongly implies that the design has nothing to do with enriching humanity or the global economy. We should be very, very suspicious. I imagine it just makes eugenics easier to enforce when populations are consolidated (and population control is a major part of this global model).
Weighing the Options
To be fair to the concept of open borders, let me present the pro’s and con’s. I’m sure there are many, many more that belong in each column, so I welcome any input the readers might have (and will likely amend with ideas of merit).
– As cultures share and integrate, people become more aware of global views, issues, and events, which will eventually homogenize.
– The poorest populations on earth will have the opportunity to benefit from the wealth of other nations (former nations).
– There will be a uniformity of businesses, business practices, media, society, currency, laws, regulations, values, mores, norms, fast food, grocers, language, leadership, and pretty much everything else.
– The need for nationalism and patriotism will be eliminated, as will the need for war (theoretically).
– The prospect of peace and harmony for all mankind, working towards a common purpose.
– If a government doesn’t have to concern itself with protection from the outside, it can focus on protection on the inside.
– Natural resources and production can be pooled.
– No more racism or discrimination as all (common) men/women/neither/both/other are truly equal.
– A single, digital, fiat currency.
– Freedom of movement from one region to another, without need for passports or visas
– Populations will naturally cap as global wealth increases
– Immigration controls don’t work, and are at best an inconvenience.
This is a far better representation of the pro’s than I could generate alone, and makes a strong case. And maybe it’s the ideal to work towards, but it doesn’t take into account the powers behind the move, or their less than noble motives, which is where my hesitation originates.
Many of the con’s are much the same as the pro’s, because one man’s goose is another man’s apocalypse.
– Integration can’t be forced, and when you try, it destroys cultures and ways of life. It discourages variety in all things.
– Many areas which are goals for migrants have limited resources, and can’t handle a surge of population.
– Eliminates healthy competition between nations and states.
– Forcing an unwilling populace to integrate breeds civil unrest and discontent.
– Migrants with vastly different religious and political views, values, mores, norms, and goals will have a difficult time integrating rather than merely attempting to change the cultures to which they move.
– Most cultures will have difficulty uniformly adopting the laws and law enforcement required for open borders.
– Diseases and viruses will inevitably lead to epidemics.
– Uniformity of laws and values for the majority leaves no options or place to escape for people in the new minority.
– Racism will be exacerbated from all sides.
– Radicalism and acts of terror will be the new normal.
– The rich will get significantly richer, while the rest of the world settles into a vast, lower-middle class.
– Anyone labeled a social deviant in any way will be ruined for life with nowhere to turn.
– Immigration controls don’t work as is, because of bureaucratic meddling. If increased government doesn’t work on the small scale, in hundreds of nations, how do we expect a single, enormous government to do anything but digress?
I can’t even pretend that that list was fair and unbiased, because it was biased, very biased. Not because I think the freedom to travel across borders worldwide is a bad idea—I actually support the concept—but no borders is a disaster waiting to happen. And the way it’s being implemented is a terrible idea. And the motives behind doing it this way are equally abhorrent. I can’t believe that the motives are pure; no one would after doing even the shallowest of digging. But we’ll get into that later as well.
It’s easy to poke holes in other people’s ideas, but that doesn’t do much to address the problem of what actually should be done about travel across borders and migration. The root of the problem is that third world environments exist in the first place. I would argue that it’s by design, but, to the point, if the issue of mass migration is to be truly remedied, then resources should be devoted to eliminating the third world from the inside. By providing infrastructure, education, and healthcare (and refraining from senseless wars) in under-developed nations, the problem solves itself. The world’s vast wealth has been withheld, and where it has been given, it’s been on billion dollar bandaids. Again, I would argue that the bandaids are intentional; they allow the “desirable” problem to persist, while creating the illusion of philanthropy.
The other side of that same coin is to eliminate the welfare state that cripples our own populace while luring in those who are starving for a leg up. Immigrants shouldn’t be incentivized to be illegals. Visas should be given generously; illegal immigration is less of an issue when the borders are easier to legally cross. When the free market is left alone without the meddling of bureaucracies, the market will dictate supply and demand of jobs, and those seeking opportunity will fill the labor need organically.
Birthright citizenship for the children of illegals should not even be on the table. The path to citizenship shouldn’t be an incentive for illegal immigration. Citizenship should be freely given to any who share the same values as the culture to which they wish to move (if resources allow), and who can contribute to that culture or market. Contribution comes in many forms, so long as it’s a requirement.
Personally, I think if these issues are addressed before anything else, then the issue of “open borders” becomes obsolete. Why do we need to eliminate borders at that point? Borders provide a service to cultures and societies when enforced properly; they’re not a hinderance until bureaucracies (or the globalist elites) get their grubby hands on them. Borders allow a degree of control over who comes and goes, which can be repressive if abused, but that’s where competition of nations and their methods/policies work like the free market, through trial and error. We live in a hyper-politically correct world, where the idea that there’s such a thing as “undesirables” is demonized. But there are undesirables, for every culture. They’re not the same in every culture, some are more inclusive than others. I’m sure even ISIS is welcome somewhere in the world. But do you really want them moving next door?
I’m no fan of the security state, or of the idea that strong borders can keep people in as much as keep people out, but it’s a better solution than leaving our front door open and unlocked.
To me, the ideal scenario is to actually promote a system where more nations might exist. If states and regions are free to form their own nations, and nations were defined more by the people who make them up than by the lines on a map, the lines can shift as populations change organically. Nations will be formed of groups of like-minded individuals, with similar values and beliefs. People can freely travel from place to place, and more easily settle in places which share their world views. It’s not the same as open borders. It’s freedom of nations to be unique, and representative of their people. It’s freedom of nations and states to leave one union to join, or form, another with common interests. Competition (healthy competition) is encouraged in this system, and systems of government are given the freedom to evolve, and experiment with methods of governance. That competition will drive nation-states to better represent the values of their people, and adopt policies that improve and maintain relations with other nation-states. It encourages freedom of trade, freedom of cooperation, and freedom of isolation if a nation so chooses. If a nation wants to keep its people, its land, and its resources, then it must represent the will of its people. It’s freedom, plain and simple, and it’s what we are supposed to be upholding.
Compelling arguments can be made for either side of the open borders debate, but getting too wrapped up in them distracts from the underlying problem. How did we even get to a place where the idea of open borders, mass migration, and eliminating states and nations was anything but a treasonous concept? Like a frog in tepid water, placed on the boiler and slowly cranked to 212 degrees Fahrenheit, we’ve been oblivious to the rising temperature, or its inevitable end.
In part 2, we’ll look at these megaregions more in depth. Beyond that, we’ll also take a look at the Council on Foreign Relations, the role of the Bureau of Land Management, Nixon’s folly, the rise of the City-States, and the mechanisms that triggered this unnatural paradigm shift, and the crises that result. It isn’t pretty, but I don’t expect you to take my word alone. I come bearing evidence, and encourage you to demand nothing less when considering the issues we’re faced with, dare I say it, “globally.”
For God and Liberty,
“There is a greater strength than wealth, and it is greater because it cannot be taken away. Our strength, the strength of the proletariat, is in our muscles, in our hands to cast ballots, in our fingers to pull triggers. This strength we cannot be stripped of. It is the primitive strength, it is the strength that is to life germane, it is the strength that is stronger than wealth, and that wealth cannot take away. But your strength is detachable. It can be taken away from you. Even now the Plutocracy is taking it away from you. In the end it will take it all away from you. And then you will cease to be the middle class. You will descend to us. You will become proletarians. And the beauty of it is that you will then add to our strength. We will hail you brothers, and we will fight shoulder to shoulder in the cause of humanity.”