Immigration
A house is not necessarily a home. There exists within this distinction a world of difference, and it is this difference that is causing the current war of the third world against the first. Immigration is this war’s primary weapon. Under wartime conditions it is easy to panic and lose one’s grasp of realistic political principle, especially concerning issues so contentious. Lest our victory in this war become a Pyrrhic one in the long-term we need to crystallize our understanding of immigration in terms of which political system’s policy, i.e. that of liberalism, third positionism, or zeroth positionism, is most robust against globalism. This comparison is best introduced with historical context.
The modern nation-state is an extreme historical aberration. The absence of jealously-guarded borders enclosing macro-linguistic groups of europeans is only conspicuous to Western nationalists today because for most of our history they did not exist. Up until 1914 a man could travel from one end of Europe to the other with minimal political (if not economic) constraint (Taylor 7). Due to dynastic intermarriage, monarchical reign, especially during the Middle Ages, was often over discontiguous territory. One of the Free State Project’s full-time employees once described herself to me as pro-open borders because she recognized that free migration between Northern Ireland and the Republic helped mitigate petty religious strife in her ancestral homeland. While the difference between europeans and global southerners is so great that we rightfully refer to them as being of different worlds with borders between that ought to be enforced accordingly, the differences between european peoples is much smaller, though certainly not insignificant. Liberals argue for global open borders on the basis of a false continuum along this spectrum. Third positionists commit the same fallacy in the reverse direction when they argue for centrally planned immigration control, the quality of which within the universal limitations of central planning is dependent on the quality of the planners themselves. Permissiveness in admittance policy between the territories of european peoples should be proportional to their compatibility, and only a free market in such policy maximizes this flexibility. While neighborhoods in a free Ireland can be expected to be homogeneously Protestant or Catholic depending on the denomination of the nearest church, both denominations can live harmoniously within a city the size of Belfast provided that public works are demonopolized, which mightily mitigates factional squabble for control.
Economics
Cheap labor is an immigration bogeyman that right-wing populists share with their counterparts on the old left. They remember from Econ 101 that an increase in supply of something lowers the price but little else. Some recognize labor as an input to production and the benefit coming from such an increase in labor supply in the form of lower prices for goods and services, while also recognizing that the cost of increasing a country’s labor supply by mass third world immigration greatly outweighs this benefit. As is typical, however, they misdiagnose the actual disease underlying this malady as laissez-faire capitalism. An obvious flaw in their theory that immediately presents itself is the fact that demand for lower priced goods and services is a human universal. Corporations and consumers in the third world are no less desirous of cheap labor than those in the first and would love to see the brain drain that globalism inflicts on their countries reversed. Migratory pressure occurs because the first world is the first and third world is the third. Both first world jobs and welfare are higher paying but the reason that whites alone share their welfare with the third world is because they are altruistic. Welfare statism and capitalism are inherently antithetical, both because of the opportunity cost that funding a welfare state imposes in terms of potential capital investment and also the employment disincentives it creates. Some third positionists uncritically swallow neoliberal propaganda claiming mass immigration boosts GDP, reactively framing the issue as one of necessary conflict between economic and national wellbeing. This is easily falsified, however, by the case of Japan, who despite the devastation experienced at the hands of the Americans in World Word II also experienced the highest GDP growth of any country on Earth in the decades following with near-zero immigration. Global economic studies show no correlation between immigration policy and GDP generally, as Peter Brimelow has observed in Alien Nation. Third world immigration, in fact, is a weapon of mass destruction against human capital in its exacerbation of welfare statism, in the costs of increased petty crime, and in the lost productivity attentive to diversity (more on the latter below). More sophisticated third positionists may concede this but object to a free-market immigration policy on the grounds that it allegedly benefits the nation’s “capitalists” at the expense of “workers”. This objection is addressed next.
In a free labor market wages are not dependent on the ethnic composition of the labor force, only the marginal productivity of labor itself. Marginal productivity is how much revenue is increased by bringing on an additional laborer given the total number available. Due to the law of diminishing returns marginal productivity of labor decreases as the number of existing laborers increases. The businessman as such is concerned only with increasing this number. He cares not, all else equal, whether this increase comes from immigration or growth in the native population. Because immigration is an increase in the local labor supply, however, not an increase in the global one, the businessman regards immigration as a substitute for native population growth only insofar as his operations are locally constrained. Ironically enough, constraints of this kind such as restrictions on offshoring are measures that third positionists favor. In failing to grasp the fundamental differences between uncontrolled immigration of foreign labor and free trade in goods (a mistake that liberals also make) they seek restriction of the latter, which creates both stronger domestic pressure for immigration as an offsetting cost control measure and stronger foreign pressure due to increased impoverishment of less productive countries resulting from the hampering of international trade. Goods are not people. Japanese cameras cannot commit crimes against Americans, either on the street or at the ballot box. For the most part people are not goods either, when they are we call it slavery, which has its own issues.
A counter example third positionists could cite in support against capitalist indifference to the ethnic composition of labor is the expressed preference for diversity on the part of some contemporary capitalists for the reason of undermining unionization. To whatever extent this is true, the net economic effect of diversity is clearly negative. In terms of direct effects, diverse workforces are less productive because they are less cohesive. Even if it were not virtually mandatory in the Griggs era, human resource departments at diverse companies would still have some kind of diversity office to mitigate the negative effects of diversity. This of course is by itself an inefficiency that a genuinely free market swiftly weeds out.
Unionism as a premise of third positionist opposition to free market immigration policy has other flaws too. In pointing out business’ use of diversifying immigration against unionism third positionists undermine their premise that capitalism views all peoples as economic units that are fungible for their inherent sameness. If they cite the previous paragraph as unwitting support of this premise on my part they commit the error of ignoring my qualification with the crucial economic condition of all else equal. Tests of any scientific theory, economic or other, must to the greatest extent practical, isolate as variables the terms in the model corresponding to the hypothesized factors in the overall phenomenon being studied while holding the other terms constant. This is especially true in economics, however, due the sheer multitude of factors in play. The size of the available labor supply for a given role within his company is only one of a multitude of factors the businessman must consider in making personnel decisions. Decisions that maximize value are decidedly anti-egalitarian. The difference in compensation between executives and entry-level employees at large corporations by itself shows clear correspondence to the Pareto Principle. The best businessmen, however, recognize not only quantitative differences in groups such as in productivity levels between org chart tiers but also qualitative differences such as cultural outlook. This is why assessment of cultural fit is such a common feature, indeed a key feature of job interviews. Treating a company holistically rather than in a materialistically reductive manner is of such vital economic importance, in fact, that there exists a business-specific term for it: synergy. Synergy is when the productivity of multiple organizations combined into one exceeds the sum total of the groups working separately. It often refers to the cost savings enjoyed from mergers of whole companies1 however it can apply to personnel decisions at a single company as well. Teams of bureaucrats may not get along well mixed with teams of researchers but both teams working as homogeneous nations within the same world of one company creates positive synergy. The negative effects of ethnic diversity can be thought of as negative synergy, which is also a real and recognized phenomenon in business2. The blind spot many business leaders presently have toward ethnic diversity’s negative synergy is not anything inherent to business at all but the result of osmosis from a whole society dominated by progressivism, including business schools so dominated3. Contra Strasserists and other leftists, businesses as such are not inherently conservative or right-wing. The latter are political orientations and politics is the domain of violence. Internal violence is bad for business4 so there is a natural tendency for business policymakers who are not political ideologues to remain politically neutral in their personnel decisions. In ignoring Robert Conquest’s Second Law, however, right-instinct businessmen have made a fatal mistake. In failing to exclude ethnic and globalist nepotists from policymaking roles businesses once controlled by meritocrats have been taken over by such nepotists, hence the Full Merit designation Liberty+ offers to businesses as protection. In general capitalism supplies what’s demanded, especially what the state demands at gunpoint. Non-whites are far more accepting of despotism generally so a despotic state is naturally much more demanding of diversifying immigration than a voluntary one.
There is a more fundamental objection to unionism as a premise of the third positionist immigration stance, however, and that is the fact that unionism is a problem only insofar as the state and other violent organizations make it. As explained earlier, an average wage on a free market is determined by the marginal productivity of labor itself, not the means by which workers bargain with employers. This being an average, however, allows for variance within industries and even companies of skill at wage bargaining. It is far from the case that collective bargaining is always more lucrative than individual bargaining either. A worker of superior bargaining skill to that of a union leader prefers to negotiate individually and views union dues as a complete waste of money. Western labor markets are very much unfree, however, due to the litany of legal privileges labor unions enjoy among other reasons, and for this reason it is often advantageous even for such an exceptionally skilled worker to join one. Big businesses choose to counter unions with diversifying immigration rather than lobby for the abolition of the very regulatory state that privileges labor unions because that same state also privileges big businesses against smaller competitors in a whole host of ways. The imputation of diversifying immigration to capitalism as a necessary feature is just one example among the many fallacies of spurious association that third positionists commit. These fallacies derive from the uselessly vague and leftist way they define “capitalism” as a catch-all term referring to big business and financial institutions they happen to dislike, diverging from liberals in their objection specifically to these institutions being run by jews while remaining in accord with many liberals in their objection to the wokeness these institutions presently promote. What capitalism actually is however, is simply the enshrinement of property in capital, and capital is simply a good that happens to be used in the production of another good. As Blood Wealth Soil nicely puts it: “Capitalism means that if you have a hammer, you get to keep the hammer and whatever you make with it.” “Woke capitalism” is the result not only of succumbing to Conquest’s Second Law described in the previous paragraph but also the legal privilege that the Griggs decision and other policies confer and is in this regard a subset of the regulatory blight brought up in this one. Regardless of diversifying immigration’s economic effects, no businessman or anyone else has the right to import aliens who physically threaten the nation’s wellbeing. Importers of non-violent aliens who threaten the nation in other ways are to be checked with a fierce nationalist cancel culture. The efficacy with which cancel culture has served our enemies is self-evident to anyone alive today and there is no reason it does not serve us just as well. Its efficacy today is proof that the homo economicus view of businessmen is wrong. Wokeness is unpopular and often costly to publicly promote yet big businessmen do so anyway because of the moral precedence it has in their minds. Destroying wealth does nothing to dampen demand for diversifying immigration, what needs to be destroyed is the notion that tolerance, especially tolerance of those who promote such immigration, is a virtue. Wealth is a crucial source of national strength, and property in capital, including full freedom of association therein, is something that we as nationalists should protect as robustly as property in everything else.
Libertarianism
Laissez-faire capitalism is the economic feature of libertarianism and third positionist hatred of liberty is not at all confined solely to the realm of economics. Unfortunately the libertarian movement, being another casualty of Conquest’s Second Law, is quite squishy at present on what pro-liberty immigration policy looks like, which facilitates third positionists’ throwing of the free society baby out with the open borders bathwater. This is a shame not only because liberty is precious unto itself but also because genuinely libertarian immigration policy is nationalistically superior to the centrally planned kind. The remainder of this article corrects both the libertarian movement and third positionists on the remaining pertinent matters in this order.
Subversives within the liberty movement promote open borders by association of liberty with openness. This is obviously spurious as the foundation of liberty is property, which in libertarian philosophy is defined as the control of one party over the use and disposal of a scarce resource to the exclusion of all others in the world who want it. Territory is no less scarce of a resource than anything else and the property norm no less applicable thereto for that reason5. A country is therefore defined in libertarianism as the aggregate real estate holdings of a nation. The plural here is crucial in its distinguishing of the individual ownership that defines libertarianism from the intended collective ownership that defines collectivist ideologies generally. The word “intended” is also crucial here, because in actuality what such ideologies result in is state ownership in the name of the collective. There is nothing more anathema to libertarianism than globalism in this regard, which seeks to collectivize all countries under a one world state. Multiple individuals may voluntarily enter into a contract apportioning joint ownership of property, however, and under conditions of statism “state-owned” property a libertarian may rightfully regard as jointly-owned by taxpayers. Some libertarians on this matter suffer from a form of reverse statism where government is so inherently malevolent that they believe government-owned land must be regarded as unowned lest those who would lay claim to it become possessed by the Actonian demon of corrupting absolute power. The privitization process this view demands however, is an egalitarian free-for-all where a Bushman enjoys no less of a claim to Arctic territory owned erstwhile by the Canadian state than an Eskimo. Whether you call it “government”, “state”, or “security services”, a free nation would obviously have in some such organization(s) a substantial ownership stake and would leverage this toward the enforcement of immigration policy. Regarding the state as an immigration policymaker, some libertarians also arbitrarily regard forced segregation of non-whites from whites as a far greater evil than forced integration despite the fact that a free society would by necessity be segregated from unfree ones. For reasons of ethnomasochism, however, they have a double standard on this which reveals itself in their denunciation of white colonialism, which was a form of forced integration unto itself. Moreover, it is also a fact that forced racial integration of whites with the third world is a far greater evil than forced segregation. From both an individualist and a collectivist standpoint it is more important to be able to associate with people who are more like you rather than less, especially when “less like you” means hostility to the very concept of liberty and deadly hatred of you for being different.
Spurious association of liberty with licentiousness is primarily the province of left-libertarians but on the issue of immigration liberals also make similar arguments. On the national question, however, they do not so stridently dismiss the value of national homogeneity but will say instead, “whatever your views on nationality are, how can one person in a free society forbid someone else from admitting a foreigner who carries no disease and has no criminal record?” While these criteria are by themselves fully consistent with the non-aggression principle, a significant problem is that official records from third world countries are worthless due to the corruption of the police, courts, and laws themselves. Even granting perfection in third world criminal justice there is still the fact that a third worlder who has not yet committed a crime is still much more likely to do so than his first world counterpart, thus his admittance represents an increased exposure to NAP violation for the latter. This is a direct application of Murray Rothbard’s easement concept addressing environmental externalities, which is considered the gold standard in libertarian thought on the issue. The concept is: If a community homesteads land with a certain level of environmental cleanliness, they have, in addition to the land itself, also homesteaded an easement to that level of cleanliness in perpetuity. If an industrial concern subsequently wishes to build a plant nearby that will pollute the community’s environment, that community has a right to prohibit that plant’s construction. Likewise, a nation that has homesteaded a territory also has homesteaded with it an easement to their own crime and disease rates, which entitles everyone within it to prohibit everyone else from importing foreigners belonging to groups with significantly higher rates. In an age where all land on earth has already been homesteaded, many people, including many libertarians who should know better, have lost appreciation for the importance of homesteading as a legitimizing criterion of property. All property in land had to be homesteaded at some point in the past, after all, so all voluntary exchange of land is descendent thereof. Because whites are by far history’s greatest homesteaders, a homesteading emphasis in immigration policy for white countries may be regarded as a benign form of white supremacy. Regarding significance of potential breaches of homesteaders’ easements, “significance” here means a statistically significant difference, not necessarily a large one. It is rational, all else equal, to avoid groups even of minutely higher risk. While some groups’ crime rates are so high that banning them by fiat may be considered NAP-pursuant6, subjectivity of risk tolerance regarding other groups is resolved by freedom of association, covenant, and tort. While it is possible to effectively vet immigrants on an individualized basis for crime and disease, it is also cost-prohibitive to do so on the scale at which the third world seeks to immigrate to the first. Cost effectiveness is a significant premise of the libertarian critique of statism and is one that cannot be dismissed because of strangely sentimental attachment to the color-blind version of individualism. The most objectively libertarian immigration policy under the condition of statism is where the state issues bans based on immutable characteristics such as race (which in contrast to ideology is nearly impossible to fake) to minimize the nation’s exposure to NAP violation. This is in keeping with government’s mission of keeping the peace, and libertarianism is the aim of peace for a given society.
The Asian Question
“But wait,” both liberals and third posititions may say, “the discussion thus far has been only about third worlders. Asian crime rates are even lower than whites’ so how can libertarians oppose their immigration?” Firstly, believe it or not, we libertarians have tastes and preferences that our politics has no bearing on, including ethnic in-group preference. National homogeneity is an immense aesthetic value in its own right and insofar as diversity is of value from the minority cosmopolitan standpoint, local diversity, even in urban areas where cosmopolitans congregate, always comes at the expense of international diversity. To make a locale within a country more diverse is to lessen that country’s distinctiveness vis a vis the rest of the world. It is no coincidence therefore, that Japan and Iceland are not only the most peaceful countries in the world but also among the most beautiful. The type of resale restriction on my land I would attach to it (and encourage others in my community to adopt) would therefore stipulate that in perpetuity no foreigners are to be admitted (let alone sold property) while homogeneity in any white country is less than 99%. One can go further than this in fact: Insofar as asian influx lowers property values (in spite of asian docility, this would be the result not only of the dilution of white ethnic aesthetics but also subtler cultural frictions such as asians’ more insular, less neighborly tendencies) such an influx can be regarded as a tort against homesteaders and their economic partners, if not the criminal offense as the admittance of third worlders should be. As a point of fact, asian in-group preference is even stronger than that of whites and relatively few within their countries, which already enjoy a first-world standard of living for the most part, desire to mix with the latter in the first place. Political refugees from China and North Korea can collaborate on creating a refuge on the borderlands and will eventually succeed with sufficient international aid. Enlightened South Koreans recognize that it is in their long term interest to welcome North Korean refugees as a means of undermining the North Korean government in pursuance of long-term reunification, notwithstanding the cultural divergence that the peninsula’s partitioning has caused.7 However many asian refugees end up in the West under these dynamics would be too few in number to be of any adverse political effect.
Secondly, while aesthetic preference regarding asians would be resolved by freedom of association, covenant, and tort in a free society, we currently live not in a free society but a democratic oligarchy. Regardless of whatever mixture of democracy and oligarchy our polity actually is, we do not want to be flooded with the type of people who will vote or legislate away our freedoms. Governmental crime, in fact, is an even more serious problem than street crime and polling reveals that asians are at least as anti-liberty in their political affiliation as mestizos. While in their homelands asians have built impressive civilizations in decidedly undemocratic fashion, under Western democratic system their political activity is deleterious to civilization. Mercifully, asians have historically sought advancement in Western countries much more through economic rather than political means, which sets them apart from other foreign races. As whites recede in number and influence in their countries, however, asians have started becoming more politically aggressive, for nature abhors a vacuum in power as much as anything else. This is tragic because whites and asians get along quite well under conditions of freedom. The principle that good fences make good neighbors is the core of why separation between our races in necessary under any conditions but especially important under the presently predatory political system we live under. Restoration of respective racial and national sovereignty will be that which restores mutual respect and harmony between whites and asians and makes the entire world a far better place for it.
Thus far we have established the superiority of libertarian immigration policy on economic grounds and dealt with the third positionists’ stupidman of “open-borders” libertarianism. The task remaining is demonstrating the superiority of libertarian immigration policy on non-economic grounds. We can separate this into three sub-topics: immigration, emigration, and enforcement mechanisms.
Immigration
Immigration to a nation may be likened to seasoning of a dish: Too much drowns out the main flavor but an amount to taste helps complete the dish as a meal. As the COVID lockdowns hammered home for us, there is no substitute for in-person interaction in many situations and this is true for interactions between the indigeneous and foreigners also. Maintaining friendly relations with foreign nations requires reciprocation of the generosity foreigners show in accommodating us as guests in their countries. How many foreigners are optimal? Like seasoning, this is also a matter of taste. Even if we take indigenous supermajority status of 80% as an objectively desirable minimum there is still a great deal of subjectivity regarding the returns to homogeneity above that. The truth is that there is no right answer; some might be fine at four out of five, others might not be comfortable being anything less than a 99% majority. A free market in immigration policy harmoniously resolves the perennial tension between a nation’s cosmopolitanism and provincialism in contrast to a one-size-fits-all solution which engenders conflict. It is important to note that immigrants do not randomly sprinkle themselves across a country but concentrate in cities so in a nation that is both free and relatively cosmopolitan, provincial people do not have to deal with diversity that they do not desire. Moreover, the nation’s most globally powerful and influential people tend to be the ones who have greater need of domestic interaction with foreigners. While dispensations by immigration central planners could be made for such needs, such dispensations require wasteful bureaucracies to issue them. Setting the nation’s elite against the commoners in a struggle for control of the immigration planning apparatus is dangerously counterproductive folly.
Emigration
A healthy community or nation is indicated not by whether relatively few of its healthy people leave per se, but how few leave when they are free to do so. A third positionist regime is more likely to impose restrictions on the ability of the nation’s people to leave for whatever manner of pasture they perceive as greener, which is in fact what happened under the Third Reich. The NSDAP imposed severe penalties for taking the Reich’s currency abroad, along with restricting travel for business purposes (Riemann 48). The purported reason for this is a vague appeal to “national interest” but the real reason is simply that such a regime is inherently abusive and must impose such restrictions to prevent its more productive people from diminishing its tax base. There are perfectly legitimate reasons why good people leave their homeland for an extended period of time, even permanently, and escaping an abusive government is only one among many. Distancing oneself from an abusive family situation, broadening one’s horizons, reconnecting with foreign personal heritage, academic study, and business interests are other examples. Just as third positionists and liberals conflate government and country, so also do they conflate country and nation. A nation is people and their geographic distribution has no bearing on their metaphysical status as a nation. The Hungarian Ultra-Orthodox jewish sect Satmar actually rejects the state of Israel as contrary to the Torah, believing that because jews are God’s chosen people, a state (indeed all political activity) is a weakening crutch to their flourishing as a diaspora. The disadvantage of diaspora status is a premise that third positionists use to argue for the necessity of state restriction of emigration. Here they commit a universalist fallacy: If anyone is allowed to leave then the whole nation will scatter. Jews, it must be noted, did not scatter voluntarily, in fact, one of the greatest cornerstones of their grievance with europeans is their expulsion by the Romans from their homeland. They ignore the fact that when a country’s government is well behaved, all else equal, the overwhelming majority of the nation will remain in that country even if there is no emigration restriction whatsoever.
Just as it is crucial for the health of a nation as a whole for its healthy majority to be free to leave their homeland as it suits them, so too is it crucial for its unhealthy minority to be unhindered in their natural geographic drift away from the healthy core. One-size-fits-all prohibitionism is dysgenic for reasons that will be explained in a future article on the topic. Under a property-by-property prohibition policy, by formal means such as restrictive covenants and informal means such as landlords declining to renew leases, degenerates will be inexorably squeezed out of a country’s core territory toward the borderlands where they pose minimal risk of molesting the healthy. A free emigration policy by definition does not hinder this process, whereas a monopolistic policy represents the possibility of forcing the healthy majority to associate with degenerates. Not only is this a possibility under any monopolistic state, but in a fascist one it is a certainty due to the fact that third positionists actually believe in intra-national altruism, which is to say that they believe that the healthy must be forced to attempt to rescue the degenerate from themselves whether the former stands to benefit at all. In their support for rigid country borders enforced primarily by a monopolistic state third positionists would corral the nations’ sheep and goats together.
Enforcement
Third positionists view walls as a concomitant to country borders centrally planned by the modern state. They suffer today from envy of the walls enclosing countries such as Israel and China, which they admire as extensions of the police states that characterize those countries’ governments. They view such structures as embodiments of national strength. The truth however is that such walls are for the weak. They represent excessive dependency on the state for protection from trespasses that do not even rise to the level of military invasions. Third positionists love to highlight the double standard of today’s ruling class in their advocacy of open borders from within the security of their walled, guarded mansions, but they fail to recognize that this undermines their case for having a state fence off its country. When individuals have the ability to safeguard their property to this degree country walls are at best superfluous. One does not have to be among the one percent or even a property owner to enjoy such protection either; even renters today have access to security systems such as Ring doorbell cameras that castle barons of old could only dream of. The mass affordability of such systems owes much to the fact that the industry is largely unregulated. Industrial capitalism has also made possible the mass affordability of military grade weapons with which to protect property borders. In a free society every man is literally the king of his own land and castle and it is economic freedom that has generated the wealth that lets today’s everyman live longer and safer than the kings of old. The deprivation of property protection that the everyman experiences today is the dictate of the modern state. Those of a predatory state fear and loathe those who are capable of protecting themselves against that state’s predation. If not for the predation of the modern state the disparity in means of protection between the everyman and the elite would be no greater than their disparity in means of automotive transport is now. A fascist state is predatory by definition. The best third positionists can do addressing the incentive of a fascist state to undermine its country’s borders so as to weaken the nation’s resistance to it is say “if such a state succumbed to such temptation then that state would not be classifiable as third positionist anymore.” What they cannot refute is the fact that while the economically progressivist regimes of early 20th century Europe and America may have had nationalist immigration policies at their inception, all of them are thoroughly globalist now no matter which side they fought on in World War II. “That’s because the jews won”, they object. To some degree this is true, however, the desire for more money and power is a human universal that does not abate when someone happens to work in government. It is non-whites who prefer larger goverments with more services, so regardless of jewish representation over time a progressivist state will be dominated by people willing to replace whites with non-whites to further state expansion. Franco’s Spain, the one relatively fascist state to survive World War II, is an excellent case in point.
Third posititions may try to argue for wall socialism through association of works such as Hadrian’s wall and the Great Wall of China with the glory of the civilizations that created them, however the truth is that these civilizations both declined after those works’ construction. One can sputter about post hoc till the cows come home but a causal definite in this case is that a distant, external symbol of national defense creates complacency regarding the defense of one’s nation where it matters most, which of one’s own family on one’s own property. In contrast to the Romans and Chinese, the greatest nations among our race, i.e. the ancient Spartans and Indo-Aryans, never had such walls. The lesser among a nation who feel the need for external defense symbols like walls even under the impressive level of security a free society affords them without will have their demand more efficiently satisfied by a fully free market in construction. Those who claim that such projects require the taxing power of a monopoly state are refuted by the fact that America’s oldest organized interstate highway to become transcontinental was constructed privately through the cooperation of non-governmental property owners. Whatever defensive structures resulted from such an arrangement would be much more robust and much less unsightly than the grim barbed wire and concrete enclosures we see from the modern state today.
Concluding Remarks
Nations are multilayered, organic, and evolving entities that exist in interrelational flux with one another. There is no single bright line that differentiates one nation from another. That globalists attempt to dismiss the value of nationhood itself using this premise is no reason that our immigration policy should not reflect objectivity about this fact. What our nations need is neither the absence of borders that globalists want nor rigid centrally planned ones that third positionists want but a free market therein. A nation is people and only such a system, one that affords people maximal liberty of movement to wherever landowners and their easements let them travel, can maintain a harmonious equilibrium between the need to leave our father’s house and the need to keep our house a home.
Sources
Cox, Daniel, Juhem Navarro-Rivera and Robert P. Jones “In Search of Libertarians in America”. PRRI 10/29/2013. https://www.prri.org/research/2013-american-values-survey/
Hoppe, Hans-Hermann “Of Private, Common, and Public Property and the Rationale for Total Privatization” 2/23/2011 Libertarian Papers, Volume 3. http://libertarianpapers.org/1-private-common-public-property-rationale-total-privatization/
Kevin “Leaked Documents Reveals Amazon Pushes for Diversity to Prevent Unionization” One Angry Gamer 4/25/2020 https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2020/04/leaked-documents-reveals-amazon-pushes-for-diversity-to-prevent-unionization/
Lokteff, Lana “dIvErSiTy iS oUr StReNgTh”. Red Ice TV. 9/13/2022 https://redice.tv/news/diversity-is-our-strength
Meeks, Harold “On The Road to Yellowstone” PICTORIAL HISTORIES PUBLISHING CO., INC. 2000 http://www.lincolnhighwayoh.com/v1/Yellowstone.htm
Nadler, Allan L. The War on Modernity of R. Hayyim Elazar Shapira of Munkacz. Modern Judaism, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Oct., 1994), pp. 233–264
“Americans See Broad Responsibilities for Government; Little Change Since 2019” Pew Research Center 5/17/2021 https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/05/17/americans-see-broad-responsibilities-for-government-little-change-since-2019/
“Trends in party affiliation among demographic groups” Pew Research Center 3/20/2018 https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-affiliation-among-demographic-groups/
Rectenwald, Michael “Woke Capitalism is a Monopoly Game”. Mises Institute 2/10/2022 https://mises.org/wire/woke-capitalism-monopoly-game
Reynolds, Morgan “Labor Unions”. Econlib. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/LaborUnions.html
Riemann, Günter The Vampire Economy New York: Vanguard Press, 1939 https://mises.org/library/vampire-economy
Rothbard, Murray “Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution” Cato Journal 2, No. 1 (Spring 1982): 55–99. https://mises.org/library/law-property-rights-and-air-pollution
Rothbard, Murray “Nations by Consent” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11, No. 1 (Fall 1994): 1–10] https://mises.org/wire/nations-consent
Taylor, A.J.P. From Sarajevo to Potsdam New York: Harcourt, Brace and World 1966
Notes
1N.B. merger is something third positionists oppose hawkishly except when such companies are governments consolidating into modern states. Their carving out of an exception to anti-trust law for labor unions is also something they have in common with ZOG.
2Financial analysts apply a “conglomerate discount” to the valuation of companies comprising subsidiaries in unrelated industries due to negligible synergy and material bureaucratic overhead.
3The author experienced this first-hand in one of the country’s leading business schools.
4This is true even of businesses in the violence industry, i.e. governments: https://infogalactic.com/info/Night_of_the_Long_Knives
5“Non-invasion principle” might be a better term than “non-aggression principle” for this reason also
6In 2015 Japan in a moment of weakness admitted 27 middle eastern refugees and 2 were arrested for gang rape: https://www.libertynation.com/japan-admits-almost-no-refugees-still-see-rapes/
7This would seem to run counter to political decentralization but our aim in this is not conglomeration of Korea’s existing governments but merger of the two that retains the best of each, namely North Korea’s hardline nationalism and South Korea’s economic freedom, while divesting each of its current baggage that is the opposite of the aforementioned features. The resulting government would be more libertarian than either is now, and the ratio of that government’s to size of the entire Korean nation would be smaller than between the sum of the two current goverments and the nation today.