“Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,” wrote poet Robert Frost in the opening line of “Mending Walls.”
Good walls make good neighbors. The wall need not be made of stone and steel. Language, laws, culture and history are walls between and among people. The progressive ideals of multiculturalism and moral relativism have failed. Contrary to present day narrative and education, there is right and wrong, and you have the God-given and Constitutional right to judge that for yourself.
But, if you don’t play by our rules when you are in our jurisdiction, inside our border, in our republic, then you are at our mercy. If you have any other intention, then you are at our mercy. I would expect the same in your country.
Trying to force the world into one language or a global government at this point in time is a Tower of Babel, a fool’s errand, an exercise in futility. On the other hand, having one official national language inside your borders, inside your jurisdiction, is most efficient. An official language does not prohibit knowledge of additional languages. So, you see, a well-enforced border between nations is a paradox.
Having no walls and open borders is a wonderful ideal. But, this planet is generations away from the common set of worldwide morals, goals, and a common sense of reality that one day might make open borders practical. Today, there are unfathomed conceptual voids that separate cultures and societies.
For example, the UN, the present day official international forum of world order, cannot even agree on an unconditional condemnation of suicide bombing. In such a condition, today, it is not possible to have a common core worldwide education or a common set of simple morals. In America today, it is politically incorrect to teach in schools the difference between right and wrong. The failure to teach right and wrong closes young minds. Closed minds result from political correctness. Easily influenced, closed minds is the objective of collectivist governments, the UN and most globalists. They accept no argument. They do not listen to alternatives. They think they know what is best and any argument is outside their reality.
There is no mind meld and no Sense8 in this our corporeal existence on earth, except in movie fiction and perhaps your dreams.
But, even though the UN is unable to do so, one sovereign nation state can unite and agree within its borders on a condemnation of suicide bombing as a crime against humanity, that sovereign nation is the United States of America. It is not for me to say, but I suspect that Israel, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and probably a few other nations would agree with the U.S. on condemning suicide bombing. There are other examples where common morals, goals and a common sense of reality do not exist.
“Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism) is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.”… “It may be described by the common aphorism: “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”. “(1)
Neither jihadists nor illegal immigrants follow that aphorism when they migrate to a western country, yet they and their “progressive” supporters expect western nations will allow them to enter and even pay them welfare. But when we go to their country, we are expected to do as Romans do, upon peril of death or prison. But when they come to a western country, they want to change the laws and culture, and they do resort to violence to achieve that. Try marching in a street protest in Tehran or Mexico City with an American flag. A set of common morals, goals and a common sense of reality do not exist across nations.
Morals are not relative. There are absolute rights and wrongs. Individuals are not chattel or martyrs or cannon fodder to be ordered about by religious edicts, governments or majorities. At least not in the U.S. That is right. Open borders or sanctuary cities means that you will have no sovereignty and no liberty in your own country, because in such case there can be no rule of law that is equal for all. A citizen will not receive the sanctuary provided to the illegal immigrant or the tolerance provided to the jihadi. That is wrong. A morally relative society is a class-based society with classes and ranks determined by identity politics.
The ability of citizens to freely discern right from wrong and to act upon that knowledge is a necessary prerequisite to liberty. Believing you have that ability is not enough. The rule of law defines a republic. Populist whims of personality and identity define dictatorships and eventually a tragedy. Equality under the law protects an individual or a minority from a majority, and from another minority, and from the people who are in government and think they know what is good for you.
The quest of European and American collectivist elites for multiculturalism, moral relativism and tolerance is a paradox. The biology, chemistry, genetics and evolution of humanity are defined by almost continuous division of our species into ever more specialized bodies with functions and features that increase adaptivity to environment and ability to procreate. Yet, in defiance of millions of years of natural evolution, the quest of the socialists is to meld millions of years of evolutionary division into a one for all, anything goes decadence. And preferably your lifestyle does not promote procreation or unique thought. Unless, of course, you are Muslim. Then you are allowed to outbreed every other society and follow the archaic rules of a murdering, thieving, warring, wife-beating pedophile. It’s a paradox inside a paradox.
If the definition of right and wrong is not agreed, or if enforcement is unequal, and if you are convinced that the act of judgment itself is wrong, and if you do not push aside your apathy and instead stand up and fight, then liberty is dead. And your head will be taken. No one is free if the people in government and their cronies are not subject to the same laws as every citizen in the street. No one is free if the wealth and influence of one citizen can buy civil liberties, social justice and legal immunity which are not free to every citizen. It should be clear, laws among free men cannot be enforced relative to how you identify yourself or your group. That would be subjective law, the laws of class, the laws of kings lording over people, the laws of theocracy.
In your nation, but not America, it may be accepted practice to steal from the government, or to lie, or to game the legal system, if it benefits you, your family, your group, or your revolutionary end goal. Bribery, coercion and cronyism are common in many nations but still sub rosa in America, though barely. The Clintons and Democrats almost brought corruption in America into open practice. Hopefully freedom-loving people in America have stopped that wrong.
In your nation, but not America, it may be accepted practice to tax people who do not share your religion; this is common practice in nations where Islam is dominant. Freedom-loving people not only know that practice to be wrong, but they actively condemn that practice. It is not tolerated. It is subjugation and slavery. This is another clear example of an absolute wrong. But Muslims are taught that practice and most believe their group is destined to dominate all other people on this earth. Most of them say they are prepared to die to achieve that destiny. Once they have out-bred you and achieved a majority political constituency, then you will be required to join them in their subjugation, or pay them, or die by their blade. If you do not realize that to be an absolute wrong, then you are not free. You are already subjugated and blinded by moral relativity.
Heed the following words written this month by a close friend for over 30 years, a Belgian diplomat in Italy:
“The migrant situation in Italy is alarming and the country cannot cope receiving them and consequently housing, feeding and integrating them in society. The problem is just too big and the politicians with their ‘socialist’ behavior are too ignorant and too much money is given to them in order to stop this migration. They are everywhere, all young men, well fed, well dressed with mobiles phones and from all possible African and Middle East countries.”
“With huge numbers they occupy empty buildings, hotels, various sports facilities and reduce them to scratch and dirty after war conditions where they do drug trafficking and more. They now start demonstrations against the police and have more rights than the Italians themselves. This will bring even more high crime. Certainly tourists will stay away because these towns become slowly ‘shanty towns’. Impossible to integrate them also because the jobless rate between young educated Italians is now 40% and they are moving abroad. As I always predicted some European countries will be inhabited and slowly governed by these migrants from African countries like Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Morocco, etc. and with time the locals will move abroad at a higher rate than it is now. If no dictator replaces the political stage Italy will be abandoned sooner or later and so will other European countries unless there will be a change also in the Schengen pact. Britain, Hungary and Austria have set good examples.”
“I hope the ‘European Union’ will continue to disintegrate because their ‘socialist’ views prove not to be working. Donald Trump will certainly help this to happen.”
Socialism, one of the several names for collectivism, is also a religion. Collectivism has many similarities to Islam. It is worship of, obedience to, subjugation to government.
Today, sovereign nation states work best for free people. Globalist government structures like the UN and EU result in corruption, waste, inefficiency and loss of liberty. They cannot agree on anything except their need for more power, control, money, collectivist goals and rhetoric. Bi-lateral trade between nation states is the path ahead for free people. Multilateral trade deals do not work for long for the same reason moral relativity does not work for long: the foundation collapses. There is only limited common morality among men of different nations and adding multiple nations to a trade deal reduces or eliminates the common ground. Trade rules with Mexico are by necessity different from trade rules with Canada or China.
A nation cannot have open borders for either people or trade if the nation has a taxpayer-provided welfare system of any type. Should a nation of free citizens allow the feeble among them to suffer? Run the numbers. We cannot feed and house everyone. Libertarian Cato Institute is once again lost in the trenchant idealism of aristocrats, and I say that as a libertarian. Libertarian Milton Friedman tells us that open borders free markets is a libertarian economic ideal, but in the same breath he also tells us that the ideal is impractical, being incompatible with welfare.
Even young Cato, the libertarian archetype, marched to war against Sparta and convinced reluctant Caesar that capital punishment was necessary to protect the republic. Protecting the republic is what I am talking about here, nothing less.
The US provides welfare for its farmers, for example, with billions of dollars in subsidies from taxpayers. Countries like Mexico that import U.S. corn and wheat under NAFTA rules have destroyed their small ag culture, which resulted in a weaker Mexico and a weaker America. Mexican ag workers left their farms, moved to the cities, found limited work there, then migrated into the U.S., bringing criminals and terrorists among them.
Have you looked at the number of women who are raped during their migration? Have you looked at the huge numbers of illegal immigrants in America’s prisons and their cost? It is a humanitarian disaster that is actively promoted by so-called progressives, global elites and their corporate cronies. Our nation is the bait that they use to attract them.
The U.S. cannot allow mass migration or refugee settlement to continue. Economically, some components of the U.S. welfare system are necessary to our republic. Legally, many migrants do not or will not assimilate into our republic. Continuing these policies is societal suicide. Cato convinced a compassionate Caesar to kill Rome’s traitors rather than wait for the inevitable crimes against the republic to occur. Will the U.S. learn Cato’s lesson? Will the U.S. block their entry so that the inevitable crimes and violence do not occur? The Islamic tyrannies learned the lesson. Europe and Canada have not.
Similarly, today, from border to border, arbitrage in people and products has equally serious costs. If people who would not assimilate are never admitted as immigrants or refugees, then they never become traitors or criminals in our republic with all the expense and suffering that entails. If products are sold here with no intention to build them here if there is a sufficient market, to assimilate the products, then protection of the businesses and rights of citizens is necessary. A business operating by the laws of one nation cannot compete with a business in another nation operating under incompatible laws. A nation does not sacrifice its citizens or its economy for another nation, or to impractical ideals. Trade, tariffs, welfare and immigration are not isolated processes; each has serious consequences for the others.
Buying a foreign-made tire, tomato or drug at 50% discount to the domestic product is an atomistic transaction disconnected from reality. It is not free trade. It is an arbitrage which includes other important derivative factors in the transaction which are being ignored. The word “idiot” is derived from the Greek word for atomistic thinkers who ignore or fail to connect the derivative dots in society. The drug is more expensive domestically because the U.S. decided that high-paying science-based jobs and innovation are important. Therefore the largest customer – the U.S. government – does not demand lower prices; the dots connect R&D jobs with profits or risk capital. A cheap tire’s or tomato’s price is arbitraged by some combination of subsidies, exchange rate manipulation, or slave labor conditions. If the rules are not the same in both nations, which is usually true, then “free trade” is rhetoric hiding derivatives.
Julius Caesar was a Roman leader who was so popular among the people that he could overrule the Senate that legally governed the Roman republic by appealing directly to the people. He was assassinated in public in the Senate by the hands of Senators not because he was a tyrant, but because he was too compassionate, too tolerant and too apathetic of the myriad corruptions which the Senators knew was destroying the republic. Caesar was not following the rule of law established in the Roman republic. He ruled subjectively as a cult of his personality. Decadence increased. Morality declined. Welfare and immigration became unsustainable. Rome became a circus of its former glory. The Roman republic ended and from then Rome was an empire ruled by dictatorial emperors, some benign, some ruthless monsters, and a few beneficial ones, but it was a long slide down into inequity and destruction by invading hoards who were already inside the walls of Roman cities.
“Something there is that doesn’t love a wall.”