The No State Solution

Guest Post by The Zman

One of the reasons our rulers are cracking down on speech is that even the most tepid debate will lead to uncomfortable questions. Just look at a public discussion of immigration. You cannot get into the discussion unless you agree that immigration is always good. The reason for that is no one in charge ever wants to address the one question that is never asked, which is, how many? How many immigrants should we take? Should Germany take a million Arabs or ten million? How about 100 million?

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)

There are two reasons to avoid the numbers question. If you agree that one million is a reasonable cap for Germany, the implication is that there is a level where you have too many Muslims or Africans. Then the debate is why is one million Arabs too many, but 75 million Germans not enough? In other words, you can quickly move from a place where questioning immigration is taboo to a debate about how and why it is necessary to limit the number of migrants. The last question, of course, is the nuclear question.

The other reason to avoid talking about numbers is it would reveal a truth that our betters would prefer remain concealed. If the goal is to move to a post-national world where borders are meaningless, then talking numbers would give the game away. The people who dream of a borderless world have to admit the numbers don’t matter to them. The right number of migrants for Germany is simply the number who physically make it to Germany, because “Germany” is just an historical fiction anyway,

Muzzling debate in America is possible because the people in charge are smart enough, at least for now, to silence anyone who has questions. Most Americans see immigration debated on TV and assume the “two sides” are both in favor of unlimited immigration. Only bigots and racists question the sanctity of immigration and dare challenge the edicts of the Giant Green Statue. But, that’s not the case everywhere as we see in this story from the UN.

In a 23-page report by the U.N. Human Rights Council, Trump is requested to set free all foreign nationals who are currently awaiting immigration hearings in the United States,Reuters reported.

“The Working Group is of the view that all administrative detention, in particular of immigrants in an irregular situation, should be in accordance with international human rights law; and that such detention is to be a measure of last resort, necessary and proportionate and be not punitive in nature, and that alternatives to detention are to be sought whenever possible,” the panel said.

What you see here is the core issue between Poland and the EU over accepting migrants into Poland. It’s not about whether Poland or the EU gets to determine how many and what type of migrant Poland must take. It’s whether anyone can set any limits at all. The UN is making clear that no country can determine who may enter its lands for settlement. All the blather in that report about human rights is just filler. The issue here is whether countries should exist and the UN is making clear they think the future is post-national.

Part of what you see with the open borders people is their belief that their unique situation can scale up to the stars. The UN is a heavily guarded playpen for the rich brats of the world’s political elite. These brats look around and see a rainbow of colors getting along like old chums. They jump from there to assuming that this can be done everywhere, not realizing the global elite can only get along when there are men with guns keeping the peace. They live in a fortified compound and they want that for everyone.

Another aspect to this is simply spite. Ruling elites have always, at some level, been at odds with those over whom they rule. The “burden of leadership” means giving up time and energy to the maintenance of order and the perpetuation of society. It’s only natural to resent it a little. What we have today is a ruling elite that hates the majority of the people, namely the white people. Notice the UN is not making open borders arguments for Africa or China. Open borders only applies to white countries, never anywhere else.

Christopher Caldwell famously pointed out that “One moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong.” The same thing is happening with whites in their own lands. At first, the number of non-whites was too small to make a strong case against immigration. Now, the numbers are too large to do anything about it. The West is about to be over run.

Of course, the question sensible whites ask is how exactly the borderless world is going to function. The West exists because whites buy into the system. As America careens into a dystopian nightmare where feral mobs pull down the symbols of the nation, how much longer will those Constitution loving, patriotic Americans, who keep the country running, buy into the system? In Europe, hardly anyone is willing to fight for their country when asked by pollsters. Why would they? Their countries no longer exist.

In a borderless world, why would anyone have any loyalty to anyone or anything outside their tribe? How could there even be a state? In theory, the custodial state solves this by having corporations police the people, but as we see with the high tech firms, tribalism begins to rot them out from the inside. The cost of propping up cash furnaces like Twitter eventually becomes too much to bear, even for the true believers. Large scale social institutions can only exist in a world of large scale social trust.

The cucks can mew about identity politics, but tribalism is the inevitable politics of multiculturalism. In fact, in a multi-ethnic, multicultural world, there can only be identity politics. Everyone is forced to root for their own team exclusively. The only way to prevent identity politics is to prevent multiculturalism and that can only happen in a world where each people has their own nation and well-defined and enforced borders. The alternative is the no state solution where it is every tribe for themselves, or else this happens.