Open Borders: A Tool of Tyrants
"Again, the evil practices of the last and worst form of democracy
are all found in tyrannies. Such are the power given to women in their
families in the hope that they will inform against their husbands, and
the license which is allowed to slaves in order that they may betray their
masters; for slaves and women do not conspire against tyrants; and they
are of course friendly to tyrannies and also to democracies, since under
them they have a good time. For the people too would fain be a monarch,
and therefore by them, as well as by the tyrant, the flatterer is held
in honor; in democracies he is the demagogue; and the tyrant also has those
who associate with him in a humble spirit, which is a work of
"Hence tyrants are always fond of bad men, because they love to
be flattered, but no man who has the spirit of a freeman in him will lower
himself by flattery; good men love others, or at any rate do not flatter
them. Moreover, the bad are useful for bad purposes; 'nail knocks out nail,'
as the proverb says. It is characteristic of a tyrant to dislike every
one who has dignity or independence; he wants to be alone in his glory,
but any one who claims a like dignity or asserts his independence encroaches
upon his prerogative, and is hated by him as an enemy to his power. Another
mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and
lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one [citizens] are enemies,
but the Others enter into no rivalry with him."
– Aristotle, Politics, Book 5, Part XI
Every living organism has, requires, and invests a large amount of energy in maintaining borders (aka skin) which is patrolled by guards (aka the immune system). Yes, it takes a lot of energy to maintain those borders, but if an organism had no borders it would cease to exist. If it just let anything in it would be a heap of disease and decay in a few hours. It is impossible for an organism to maintain health without defending its borders. This is Natural Law.
Freedom is based on property rights, which amount to the right to say no to intrusion upon or use of one's property. One's body is property by Nature (birth), and objects acquired by one's own honest labor (not by theft) are also one's property. An individual is free when s/he can say "No, you can't use my body or my property without my consent." In other words, freedom is about defending the borders of your property from invasion and theft by outsiders. If you can't defend your borders and exclude others from your property, you are not free.
Those of you who believe in open borders, do you keep the doors of your home open to anyone who wants to enter? Is keeping your doors open to anyone and everyone how you get freedom? If your house was being invaded by uninvited guests (illegal immigrants) at any time of day and night, would you be more free in your own home than if you could exclude people you had not invited or permitted? Would you be able to maintain the order and wealth of your home if just anyone could come in at any time, without a passport (i.e. your permission), and freely use any of the resources you worked so hard to accumulate? This would be like an organism allowing parasites to enter and use resources the organism had worked hard to obtain.
Defending borders is in fact exercise of freedom of association
. One defends borders in order to exercise the right to associate only with those whom you choose to associate. If someone comes onto your property (body, land, home, community, etc) without your express invitation or permission, that is called trespassing, i.e. theft of privacy. If someone can force you to associate with people you do not want to associate with, you are not free.
A nation is composed of co-operative tribes or communities, which are composed of co-operative families and individuals, all of whom share common aims and values. By Nature, that nation occupies space, a certain territory, which provides the resources (food, water, etc) that it needs to continue in existence. The nation owns that territory the same way that an individual organism owns its body and acquired property, in the same way that a family owns its home and land (resource base). The people of that nation are the collective owners of the property they inhabit. They have not only the right but the duty to protect that property from uninvited invaders who want to take the resources on that property; the duty to defend that property from invaders and thieves is a duty to THE CHILDREN OF THE NATION who need and will inherit the resources for future generations.
Survey Nature and you will see that all organisms defend acquired territory from invaders. Nature gives every organism and tribe, such as a lion pride or wolf pack, the power and right to defend property/territory from invaders. Therefore, human nations have by Natural Law every right to defend acquired property and exclude uninvited invaders from their territory.
Anyone who thinks open borders is a gateway to freedom is ignorant of Natural Law and an opponent of private property (privacy) and freedom of association, therefore an opponent of freedom and an advocate of tyranny. Ultimately the promoters of open borders want no borders, they want to be able to take whatever they want (including sexual privacy), whenever they want, from whomever they want to steal. Taken to its logical conclusion, "no borders" means no property rights, which means any man can rape any woman or any child at any time because no one owns anything, not even his or her own body, because everything belongs to everyone at all times. That's not Natural Law, that's Chaos (and the path to tyrannical communism).
In Politics Book 5 Part 3
Aristotle observed that "the reception of strangers [immigrants] in
colonies, either at the time of their foundation or afterwards, has
generally produced revolution" because strangers to a land do not have
the same values as those of the established inhabitants.
"Another cause of revolution is difference of races which do not
at once acquire a common spirit; for a state is not the growth of a day,
any more than it grows out of a multitude brought together by accident.
Hence the reception of strangers in colonies, either at the time of their
foundation or afterwards, has generally produced revolution; for example,
the Achaeans who joined the Troezenians in the foundation of Sybaris, becoming
later the more numerous, expelled them; hence the curse fell upon Sybaris.
At Thurii the Sybarites quarreled with their fellow-colonists; thinking
that the land belonged to them, they wanted too much of it and were driven
out. At Byzantium the new colonists were detected in a conspiracy, and
were expelled by force of arms; the people of Antissa, who had received
the Chian exiles, fought with them, and drove them out; and the Zancleans,
after having received the Samians, were driven by them out of their own
city. The citizens of Apollonia on the Euxine, after the introduction of
a fresh body of colonists, had a revolution; the Syracusans, after the
expulsion of their tyrants, having admitted strangers and mercenaries to
the rights of citizenship, quarreled and came to blows; the people of
Amphipolis, having received Chalcidian colonists, were nearly all expelled
In Book VIII of The Republic
Socrates (S) explained to Glaucon (G) why tyrants who face
opposition from the established citizens of a nation will import
immigrants – "more drones, of every sort and from
every land" – in order to gain support for their tyranny:
S- "And the tyrant, if he means to rule, must get rid of them; he cannot
stop while he has a friend or an enemy who is good for
G- "He cannot.
S- "And therefore he must look about him and see who is valiant, who is
high-minded, who is wise, who is wealthy; happy man, he is the enemy of
them all, and must seek occasion against them whether he will or no, until
he has made a purgation of the State.
G- "Yes, he said, and a rare purgation.
S- "Yes, I said, not the sort of purgation which the physicians make of
the body; for they take away the worse and leave the better part, but he
does the reverse.
G- "If he is to rule, I suppose that he cannot help
S- "What a blessed alternative, I said: --to be compelled to dwell only
with the many bad, and to be by them hated, or not to live at
G- "Yes, that is the alternative.
S- "And the more detestable his actions are to the citizens the more satellites
and the greater devotion in them will he require?
S- "And who are the devoted band, and where will he procure
G- "They will flock to him, he said, of their own accord, if lie pays
S- "By the dog! I said, here are more drones, of every sort and from
G- "Yes, he said, there are.
S- "But will he not desire to get them on the spot?
G- "How do you mean?
S- "He will rob the citizens of their slaves; he will then set them free
and enroll them in his bodyguard.
G- "To be sure, he said; and he will be able to trust them best of
S- "What a blessed creature, I said, must this tyrant be; he has put to
death the others and has these for his trusted friends.
G- "Yes, he said; they are quite of his sort.
S- " Yes, I said, and these are the new citizens whom he has called into
existence, who admire him and are his companions, while the good hate and
The talking heads keep trying to convince us that "diversity is our
strength," but the U.N. reports that all of the top 10 happiest nations are ethnically homogenous with strong social support networks.
The Boston Globe reports Ethnic diversity destroys social cohesion and support networks
"IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic
diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to
pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our
differences make us stronger.
"But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000
people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard
political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his
2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater
the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they
volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects.
In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half
as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the
largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all
measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings."
is not really news. As I showed above, Aristotle knew this 2300 years
ago. All tyrants have known this dictum: "divide and conquer." Ethnic
diversity is ethnic division, which makes a nation non-cohesive and
weak. This is evolved biology and psychology, not ideology. Birds of a
feather flock together. Like attracts like. People who have markedly
different values, diets, lifestyles, religions, etc. just don't get
along as well as people who share values, diets, lifestyles etc.. Its
not rocket science. We understand that two individuals can be
incompatible due to their differences; why do we deny that two cultures
can be incompatible due to their differences?
is our strength." Repeating a lie over and over will not make it true,
but it might deceive people long enough to get them to accept something
they should reject.
Unfortunately, common people advocating open borders do not realize that they are the useful idiots and pawns serving the interests of a particular ethnic group that has infiltrated Europe and the U.S.A., accumulated cultural, political and economic power and leverage, and taken control of immigration policy because this tribe desperately wants to divide and conquer Europe and the U.S.A. for its own benefit.
Many members of this ethnic group consider their tribe very special –
divinely chosen – and on the whole they are very loyal to the tribe and
homeland; they are generally more loyal to their homeland than to the
This tribe evolved in markedly different natural and cultural circumstances from those in which Europeans evolved. Consequently they have very different mentality and values from Europeans.
The interactions between this tribe and Europeans in both the U.S. and Europe confirm Aristotle's observation that ethnic diversity – multiculturalism – generally leads to inter-ethnic conflict.
IF YOU DON'T WANT A RED PILL THAT MIGHT MAKE YOU UNCOMFORTABLE, YOU SHOULD STOP READING THIS RIGHT NOW.
IF YOU'RE READY FOR A DOSE OF REALITY, CLICK HERE TO READ PART 2.