ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Who owns the future?

Pat Buchanan observes that the central struggle for the future of the West is now between globalists and nationalists:
Robert Bartley, the late editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, was a free trade zealot who for decades championed a five-word amendment to the Constitution: “There shall be open borders.”

Bartley accepted what the erasure of America’s borders and an endless influx or foreign peoples and goods would mean for his country.

Said Bartley, “I think the nation-state is finished.”

His vision and ideology had a long pedigree.

This free trade, open borders cult first flowered in 18th-century Britain. The St. Paul of this post-Christian faith was Richard Cobden, who mesmerized elites with the grandeur of his vision and the power of his rhetoric.

In Free Trade Hall in Manchester, Jan. 15, 1846, the crowd was so immense the seats had to be removed. There, Cobden thundered:

“I look farther; I see in the Free Trade principle that which shall act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in the universe — drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonisms of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace.”

Britain converted to this utopian faith and threw open her markets to the world. Across the Atlantic, however, another system, that would be known as the “American System,” had been embraced.

The second bill signed by President Washington was the Tariff Act of 1789. Said the Founding Father of his country in his first address to Congress: “A free people … should promote such manufactures as tend to make them independent on others for essential, particularly military supplies.”
What is disturbing to me is how fundamentally dishonest the advocates of free trade are. The more intelligent and insightful of them know that what they are advocating necessarily means the end of the nation-state and the end of the nations, but they are intent on hiding that reality because they know how unpopular it is with the vast majority of the population in every nation.

Sure, if you press them hard enough they will admit that national borders are just "a line on a map" and that they don't care at all about their fellow citizens, but they certainly aren't going to publicly own up to the destruction that is inherent in their economic vision.

But the globalists will fail for the same reason that the communists failed and the feminists are failing. Eventually, the weight of the contradictions and the falsehoods will cause their system to collapse.

The future belongs to the nations. Deus le vult.

Labels: ,

63 Comments:

Blogger McChuck March 13, 2018 8:14 PM  

One vision of the future is articulated in the "The Unincorporated Man" trilogy.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother March 13, 2018 8:14 PM  

Washington would have nixed the Broadcom deal too.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother March 13, 2018 8:16 PM  

Ron Paul would have allowed it.

Blogger JACIII March 13, 2018 8:22 PM  

The "Free Traders" are as bad as the NeoCons. The small attempt to equalize trade Trump has made has them all marching in lock step. Nothing even approximating "free" trade is going on in the world and to hear them squall you'd think prior to Trump international laissez faire was the normal state. It's as fictional a "Equality".

Blogger DonReynolds March 13, 2018 8:30 PM  

Globalists believe in multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-national EMPIRES and every such EMPIRE, in the history of the world, has ultimately failed. When an Empire breaks up, all that are left are Nations. That is the default condition of people everywhere....not chaos and not empire, but Nations.

Blogger The Kurgan March 13, 2018 8:32 PM  

We really need a Third World War. This time though it’s us against the cops, judges, lawyers, Wall Street traders, bankers and politicians. A nice return to city states after the massacres will be the ideal.

Though... I believe that’s what happens after the second coming... just one glorious city left...
Guess I’ll have to wait until then

Blogger Arthur Isaac March 13, 2018 8:37 PM  

Koch = Soros

Blogger Johnny March 13, 2018 8:43 PM  

What the globalists think is that the globalists should be running things.

Another way of saying diversity is to call it divide an conquer.

As for the lying? It is say what you need to say to get your way. There is never a meeting of the minds when arguing with a liar, thus you know in advance they don't give a rip about what you think about anything.

Blogger bornagainpenguin March 13, 2018 8:44 PM  

DonReynolds wrote:Globalists believe in multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-national EMPIRES and every such EMPIRE, in the history of the world, has ultimately failed.

Yep. I'm minded of Daniel 2:31-45, where it talks about the last Empire before the end. Made of Iron and Clay it will be strong but broken with people who do not and will not truly come together.

Blogger Lovekraft March 13, 2018 9:01 PM  

Once the ;ast of the Baby Boomers, who were steeped in free love, Lennon "Imagine", manipulate appeals for humanitarian aid and numerous other psy ops are in the grave, there will be a new opportunity to view the world.

Of course, the youth coming up will inherit massive challenges, least of which is a disjointed identity and globalist poisoning. But as they search for meaning, they will likely be well aware of how empty their lies are because of the internet's ability to show the other side.

OpenID aew51183 March 13, 2018 9:06 PM  

At the end of the day, the only thing preventing "competition" from becoming "war" is a uniform system of law which agnostically guarantees contractual adherence.

The geopolitical realm is lawless, thus there is no such thing as a "free market" at the international level.

QED - "Free Trade" is bunk.

Blogger Thomas Smith March 13, 2018 9:26 PM  

Man makes his plans, God laughs.

Blogger Oliver Cromwell March 13, 2018 9:40 PM  

There isn't any logical connection between free movement of goods across borders and free movement of people across borders. That they've been correlated politically in some times and places (but by no means all) is no more significant than that opposition to abortion and promotion of collective agriculture have sometimes been correlated.

Blogger James Dixon March 13, 2018 9:41 PM  

> The future belongs to the nations. Deus le vult.

Absolutely true. But which nations is an open question.

Blogger Meng Greenleaf March 13, 2018 9:44 PM  

I had some questions:
1. Do Globalists support an end to the Welfare State? It seems they'd have to begin there. Why are they constantly pushing for open boarders when the first step should be to end the Welfare State?
2. Are Globalists ideologically Anarcho-Capitalists? It seems that if they'd want to remove the Nation State (as defined by 'lines on a map'), then they'd necessarily need to remove the Governmental apparatus itself. As a Geopolitical entity, the Government would no longer exist. I was under the impression that a lot of the Globalists are in actuality, simpleminded Bureaucratic hacks - one would think they'd be the LAST people to want to end the Nation State, given their parasitic relationship with it.
3. I wondered of the Roman Republic. I once read that their markets were the freest in human history. Is this somewhat true (sorry for that phrase)? Is this what Globalists want? Because it seems they, the Roman Citizens, ended up with an Emperor..... and eventually their society collapsed.

Blogger James Dixon March 13, 2018 9:44 PM  

> There isn't any logical connection between free movement of goods across borders and free movement of people across borders.

> There isn't any logical connection between free movement of goods across borders and free movement of people across borders.

There's no logical connection between your typing an your lying, but the evidence demonstrates the two are related.

Trade has always also involved the movement of people too. The easier the travel, the more people. Travel has never been easier than now.

Blogger Lazarus March 13, 2018 9:45 PM  

Dear anti-nationalists: The whole point of God's directive to make Aliya is that you have to go back.

So go, already.

Love, Lazarus

Blogger VD March 13, 2018 9:45 PM  

There isn't any logical connection between free movement of goods across borders and free movement of people across borders.

That is so absolutely false that either you are incredibly stupid or shamelessly dishonest.

Name a single logical principle that supports the free movement of goods that does NOT also support the free movement of people.

Blogger Oliver Cromwell March 13, 2018 9:48 PM  

"Name a single logical principle that supports the free movement of goods that does NOT also support the free movement of people."

National interest.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother March 13, 2018 9:55 PM  

Free movement of goods can impoverish a people and impel them to move across borders seeking better living conditions.

People who started poor will not grow richer if the free movement if goods starts in their country. Still poor, they will move across borders looking for higher pay. Poor people become slightly richer, while middle class people become a lot poorer, generating an equilibrium across countries of nothing but poor people across the world.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 13, 2018 9:56 PM  

"That they've been correlated politically in some times and places (but by no means all) is no more significant than that opposition to abortion and promotion of collective agriculture have sometimes been correlated."

You're doubly a liar.

Does the word "fertility" mean anything at all to you?

"National interest."

...Is to punish good produced in evil and or alien systems. The end.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 13, 2018 9:59 PM  

Oliver Cromwell wrote:There isn't any logical connection between free movement of goods across borders and free movement of people across borders.
You would probably claim there is no logical connection between giving women the vote and the normalization of homosexuality too.
Oliver Cromwell wrote:National interest.
So you're going for stupidity then. Good choice.
National interest is not a logical principle, but a goal to be attained. Both sides of the Free Trade debate claim their principles are in the national interest.
Do try to keep up.

Blogger Oliver Cromwell March 13, 2018 10:14 PM  

"Does the word "fertility" mean anything at all to you?"

Collectivised agriculture correlates with low fertility. Even if it didn't, the two are hardly consistently correlated, nor did most supporters of collectivised agriculture believe it would increase fertility.

Blogger Lazarus March 13, 2018 10:53 PM  

"Does the word "fertility" mean anything at all to you?"

Answer: Collectivised agriculture correlates with low fertility. Even if it didn't, the two are hardly consistently correlated, nor did most supporters of collectivised agriculture believe it would increase fertility.

Translation of answer: No

Blogger Rambam March 13, 2018 10:55 PM  

The future belongs to the apocalypticist. And Sci-fi writers.

Blogger tuberman March 13, 2018 10:58 PM  

Pat represented very early red-pilling for me. Jordan Peterson now represents early stage red-pill beginnings for many people, as ya have to crawl, before you can walk or run.

Blogger tuberman March 13, 2018 11:03 PM  

The USA became a major manufacturing power because of tariffs, and this is what Pat is messaging. FDR undercut this with putting academic idiots in charge of trade, and it's been down hill ever since.

Blogger SciVo March 13, 2018 11:19 PM  

Meng Greenleaf wrote:I had some questions:

1. Do Globalists support an end to the Welfare State?


No. It serves at least four purposes:

A. Through creating dependency, it provides a lever of individual control;

B. Along with corruption and immigration, it is the torture rack by which the nations are stretched too thin to support themselves;

C. Through inducing indebtedness, it is a lever to control the State;

D. And then it will provide the bread and circuses with which the peons are pacified.

2. Are Globalists ideologically Anarcho-Capitalists?

Ha! No. The EU is their model, an unaccountable bureaucracy of ever-expanding reach that makes the States it absorbs irrelevant, like the Blob.

3. I wondered of the Roman Republic. I once read that their markets were the freest in human history. Is this somewhat true (sorry for that phrase)? Is this what Globalists want? Because it seems they, the Roman Citizens, ended up with an Emperor..... and eventually their society collapsed.

True or not, the Empire is what they want! Let the Emperor play with his military toys, while the wealthy and well-connected control commerce, through which they control the peons (and keep themselves on top).

Blogger Oliver Cromwell March 13, 2018 11:21 PM  

The problem is America, not free trade. Britain after the 1840s was an extremely powerful and self-assertive country and there was no significant immigration to it for another hundred years.

America cannot be the centre of a nationalist movement because it doesn't have any nation nor can one be persuasively defined. Whatever of the world's other nations are still around when America Brazilifies to irrelevance will survive. Probably mostly East Asian nations. The whitest country left on earth is likely to be Australia.

Blogger Lazarus March 13, 2018 11:24 PM  

I just figured something out. All these anti-whiteness activists have convinced me that the future of the planet depends on eliminating multiple races, because it only causes conflicts. They try to tell us mongrelization is the preferable method, but history shows that the whites are the most progressive race in terms of elevating mankind. In order to maximize the prospects for the human race, it looks like whites will have to eliminate all the other races.

For the children.

Blogger tuberman March 13, 2018 11:30 PM  

"The future belongs to the apocalypticist"

Yep, more death cult. The NWO believes in the apocalypse, and intended to orchestrate it so you would die, but they would live, probably in the next few years. Yet they really are nuts, and it would get "out of their hands," even with their best efforts, as they really are stupid.

Blogger tuberman March 13, 2018 11:33 PM  

"they try to tell us mongrelization is the preferable..."

People with a low IQ respond well to control, it's simple.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 13, 2018 11:50 PM  

"Collectivised agriculture correlates with low fertility. Even if it didn't, the two are hardly consistently correlated"

You're a walking oxymoron. Check.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 13, 2018 11:58 PM  

"America cannot be the centre of a nationalist movement because it doesn't have any nation nor can one be persuasively defined."

You, TL;DR: "Free trade is good for the USA's national interest because no nation exists in or of the USA."

I'd say that's an amazing mental gymnocontortion, but seeing as your soul has no chest, and you've no spirit at all, it's entirely unsurprising.

I'm appalled at your facetious use of my ancestor's name, and I'm sure he would be too.

Blogger CM March 13, 2018 11:59 PM  

I just figured something out. All these anti-whiteness activists have convinced me that the future of the planet depends on eliminating multiple races, because it only causes conflicts.

A La Rasa supporter I know claims this is what they believe - The Race is the hybrid race.

However, such a plan would only marginalize the occasional dominance of one color or the other as freaks when they appear. Mongrelization decreases the rate of polarized colors (white/black) but doesn't remove them completely. Consider fraternal twins of mixed parentage that are fully white or black.

Such occurrences would be given the status of albino - superstitious god-figure or demon freak.

But regardless, Dunbar's number would suggest we would just find other commonalities to align on and find conflict in.

But preaching to the choir. It's not us that believes this magical utopia is achievable.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 14, 2018 12:02 AM  

"People with a low IQ respond well to control, it's simple."

In the short term, but control is a form of selective pressure, and I'm not talking about selective pressure to conform.

Even the low IQ would eventually throw them off, probably while literally eating them alive.

Blogger Resident Moron™ March 14, 2018 1:17 AM  

Globalism is treason.

Just as atheism or islam or judaism is heresy.

The era of pretend tolerance is over.

Blogger Shimshon March 14, 2018 2:40 AM  

"Ron Paul would have allowed it [the Broadcom-Qualcomm deal]."

I was a very early supporter of RP. I was part of the 2007 Tea Party Money Bomb ($100 thank you very much). I am now grateful he didn't win. He brought many fine ideas to the public (end nation building, End the Fed, etc.) but the Deep State would've eaten him up and spit him out. His support of free trade (and likely desire to curtail enforcement against illegals) means that despite his other fine opinions, the Globalists would've considered him "our man in the White House."

Blogger Rory March 14, 2018 3:42 AM  

Just to offer some little insight from someone who used to be in favour of open-borders and all that: my attitude was always "we're all just the same really". It's the attitude that you could replace half of a population with people from another country and... well, we're all just rational beings pursuing our self-interest, and things will just work out the same.

The wake-up call for me was partially a logical one offered by a friend - 'if you have no borders, you have no country' - but it was also simply, like, facing up to the reality of what's around me. Britain isn't the same with the 2,000,000+ Muslims living within her borders - she isn't the same as she would be without them here.

What made that difficult to accept was a principled commitment to free trade, from the view that all initiation of force by the state is evil. Which I still accept, but... you can't even *have* a state if you don't have a roughly homogenous group of people, let alone some wonderful libertarian one if they aren't from the same background.

I just got thinking on that coz of what Vox said about honesty/dishonesty. If it was dishonesty on my part, it was an unwillingness to look at the reality of humans *as they are*, not as I'd like them to be.

Blogger Sherwood family March 14, 2018 4:34 AM  

Free Movement of Peoples: case in point: https://nypost.com/2018/03/13/murdered-nursing-student-was-mired-in-love-triangle/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_2680087

Blogger James Dixon March 14, 2018 6:03 AM  

> Britain after the 1840s was an extremely powerful and self-assertive country and there was no significant immigration to it for another hundred years.

See my comment about the ease of travel above.

Blogger James Dixon March 14, 2018 6:08 AM  

> National interest.

National interest only supports the free movement of goods that cannot be produced within the nation (imports) or that are produced in excess within the nation (exports). It does not support the free movement of goods as a general case.

Blogger Duke Norfolk March 14, 2018 6:41 AM  

Meng Greenleaf wrote:2. Are Globalists ideologically Anarcho-Capitalists? It seems that if they'd want to remove the Nation State (as defined by 'lines on a map'), then they'd necessarily need to remove the Governmental apparatus itself. As a Geopolitical entity, the Government would no longer exist.

I think you’re confusing the Nation-State with The State, or Government. A Nation-State is a State run for the express purposes of protecting and furthering the interests of a Nation (i.e. a people with common ancestry, customs, culture, etc.).

They definitely aren’t opposed to The State. They just want a Global State, ultimately. They want the destruction of all Nations.

Blogger Duke Norfolk March 14, 2018 6:47 AM  

Sherwood family wrote:Free Movement of Peoples: case in point

Gut wrenching, every time. The destruction of our women-folk. She was a beautiful girl, but from that article, a typical modern thot.

Every time I think about these women I just can't help to think: what if?

OpenID zhukovg March 14, 2018 7:08 AM  

Globalists are not Anarcho-Capitalists. They want a large, all encompassing, central state that is global. One world government in other words. They are neo-Babelists. Not, because they wish to reach God, but because they intend to be God.

Liberty can only exist within the framework of the nation and then, properly, as that nation defines liberty. A Shiite Moslem in Iran will define liberty very differently from a Southern Baptist in Hahira, Georgia. Keeping the two separate, in their own countries, is best for both.

You will never protect your nation's idea of liberty without strictly controlling or even prohibiting immigration. Nationalism = Freedom. Globalism = Tyranny.

--ZhukovG

Blogger Resident Moron™ March 14, 2018 7:14 AM  

See the guy arrested for multiple acid attacks in London?

True British he ain’t.

Blogger Sherwood family March 14, 2018 7:57 AM  

Duke of Norfolk: Pretty disgusting, isn't it?

If she had had a father or an older brother who could have set her right and if the piece of foreign excrement who killed her had never been allowed out of his sh!th*le country and into the U.S. she might still be alive.

But then we allow the globalists to teach our women to be whores and we let the "wretched refuse and huddled masses" in to abuse them and then wonder how this happens.

It reminds me of the line from Kipling's "Gods of the Copybook Headings."

"On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Heading said: 'The Wages of Sin is Death.'"

Our women are no longer having children and our men are losing reason and faith.

We've got to stop drinking the poison if we want to get well. And we need to find the snake oil salesmen and "encourage" them to close up shop and take their wares elsewhere.

Blogger Avalanche March 14, 2018 8:50 AM  

@30 "it looks like whites will have to eliminate all the other races.

'kay, when do we start?

Blogger Avalanche March 14, 2018 8:58 AM  

@39 "the view that all initiation of force by the state is evil. Which I still accept, but... you can't even *have* a state if you don't have a roughly homogenous group of people, let alone some wonderful libertarian one if they aren't from the same background."

AND you must have those (on-hand, on-tap!) capable of initiating the organized force that libertarians so dislike, because there is no chance ever in there NOT be other groups initiating force AGAINST your version of utopia. (So, then what?)

It's just the flip side of the commies: libertarians think every man can control himself (and forget that WOMEN ruin everything!) and the commies think the govt (of men...) can control every man.

Blogger Bucephalus March 14, 2018 9:21 AM  

"drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonisms of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace.”

Yeah, this guy was a regular Nostradamus.

Blogger SciVo March 14, 2018 9:23 AM  

Avalanche wrote:'kay, when do we start?

I read Lazarus's comment as Juvenalian satire -- always a risky business in the age of neo-Victorian feminism. (And I think you were being sarcastic as well.)

We do not have to end any other nations to survive, unless they won't leave us alone; we only have to stay apart. But open-borders liberalism is self-terminating, since those they would let in are entirely intolerant of difference, and only appear superficially simpatico due to sharing their contempt for the Western Tradition.

Blogger Resident Moron™ March 14, 2018 12:48 PM  

Nostradamus?

No, he was a regular SJW, a fool with a messiah complex.

Blogger justaguy March 14, 2018 2:07 PM  

If the future is the nation state, does that future include Western Europe? Due to proximity, ability to easily migrate unless the Europeans start sinking boats, the number that are coming/will come out of Africa, and the current lack of belief in their own/old culture-- do you see any future for the non-iron curtain countries in Europe?

Blogger James Dixon March 14, 2018 3:18 PM  

> If the future is the nation state, does that future include Western Europe?

Western Europe has fewer immigrants than the US.

> Due to proximity, ability to easily migrate unless the Europeans start sinking boats,

That's a huge unless.

> the number that are coming/will come out of Africa,

If we stop feeding them, the torrent will fade to a trickle very quickly.

> and the current lack of belief in their own/old culture

And that's the $64K question. All indications are the young Europeans are rejecting their own destruction, but we'll have to wait and see. That's the way history works.

OpenID markstoval March 14, 2018 3:25 PM  

Someone wrote: "There isn't any logical connection between free movement of goods across borders and free movement of people across borders."

Vox Day responded: "Name a single logical principle that supports the free movement of goods that does NOT also support the free movement of people."


----

The problem I see here is that some "free traders" envision what could be, rather than what is now. If all land was privately owned and there was no nation-state then person #1 is correct, but unfortunately we don't have a market anarchy with private property only.

Under today's conditions then Vox Day is correct that with Nation-STATES we often end up with free movement of people if we have free movement of goods and services. Think of all the "public property" that the governments control and do with as the rulers please.

I am hoping to see the nations win. That is "nations" as conceived as people of the same linage, language, religion, customs, history and all the rest. A TRIBE if you will.

When the good book speaks of the nations, it does not mean Nation-States as we know them today.

I realize that people my age who are market anarchists are not suffered gladly here, but one must remember that Rothbard was a great supporter of Pat Buchanan and was an enemy of the Koch Brothers. I have always considered the Rothbardian wing of anarcho-capitolism to be about as far "right-wing" as one can go.

Free trade is a contentious issue, and what passes for "free trade" today damn sure ain't really free trade. Some day if I feel better and have the time I will e-mail Vox some thoughts on the matter and see if he would care to discuss it. Till then, I'll try not to get spammed by going to far in the comments section. :-)

By the way, just to be real clear, "free trade" with a government running the show ain't free trade as ancaps conceive of it. At least not as this Rothbardian ancap does.

Blogger Oliver Cromwell March 14, 2018 7:42 PM  

James Dixon wrote:> Britain after the 1840s was an extremely powerful and self-assertive country and there was no significant immigration to it for another hundred years.

See my comment about the ease of travel above.


Clearly it was easy enough for millions to travel to colonise the US, Canada, Australia, parts of Africa, etc. from Britain. Even for black labour to pay for the cost of its transportation to the Americas from Africa.

Rather, non-white free colonisation of white parts of the British Empire was just so illegal that it didn't need to actually be illegal. Look at the Komagata Maru incident:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komagata_Maru_incident

A British warship turned around a ship of Indian settlers bound for Canada. Later it turned out that British subjects from India had every right to go to and live in Canada as in any part of the British Empire. It was disallowed because, well, we just do not have this sort of thing going on.

That was 70 years after Cobden's statement. Immigration ideology clearly originates in the US and was imposed on Europe by the US after WWII.

Blogger Oliver Cromwell March 14, 2018 7:48 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:"America cannot be the centre of a nationalist movement because it doesn't have any nation nor can one be persuasively defined."

You, TL;DR: "Free trade is good for the USA's national interest because no nation exists in or of the USA."

I'd say that's an amazing mental gymnocontortion, but seeing as your soul has no chest, and you've no spirit at all, it's entirely unsurprising.

I'm appalled at your facetious use of my ancestor's name, and I'm sure he would be too.


That's a ridiculous non-sequitur and obviously not what I said.

Free trade can be, though isn't necessarily, in the interest of nations such as England and Japan.

The US has no national interest because it isn't a nation. It is an empire-state containing various nations. Due to this internal competition, free trade is in the interest of some of those nations but not others. The Alt-Right is probably correct that it's not in the interest of European Americans. Although I'd regard even European Americans as a proto-nation at best.

None of that has any bearing on the claim of the OP though which is that free movement of goods necessarily means free movement of people. It obviously doesn't and Britain between 1846 and 1948 - a full 102 years, not some brief aberration - is a perversely excellent example of just that.

Blogger James Dixon March 14, 2018 8:21 PM  

> Clearly it was easy enough for millions to travel to colonise the US, Canada, Australia, parts of Africa, etc. from Britain.

From Britain. Britain controlled the travel. It was comparatively easy for them, not so easy for others.

And your statement completely disproves your thesis that free trade doesn't mean the free movement of people, since in this case, as you yourself said, millions did move. The fact that the movement was one way is immaterial.

Blogger Oliver Cromwell March 14, 2018 8:26 PM  

James Dixon wrote:> Clearly it was easy enough for millions to travel to colonise the US, Canada, Australia, parts of Africa, etc. from Britain.

From Britain. Britain controlled the travel. It was comparatively easy for them, not so easy for others.


Your original point seemed to be there was some kind of practical impossibility that was shielding the British from immigration without them having to do anything or make any choices.

If you think Britain used its military superiority to prevent non-white immigration to unofficially designated white parts of its empire, you have conceded the whole debate to me.

And your statement completely disproves your thesis that free trade doesn't mean the free movement of people, since in this case, as you yourself said, millions did move. The fact that the movement was one way is immaterial.

By definition, one way movement is not free. After the time of Cobden, Britain controlled the movement of people within its empire to promote the British national interest. Then in 1948, after Britain gave up trying to be the third superpower and handed over substantial sovereignty to America, its government began importing Afro-Caribbeans to England.

Blogger Meng Greenleaf March 15, 2018 3:09 AM  

RE: *Probably mostly East Asian nations. The whitest country left on earth is likely to be Australia*

Australia is rapidly becoming anything but White. I recall sitting at Patty's in Sydney having a beer with a friend from Nanjing. He lamented how many Chinese there were in Sydney. Essentially, he may well have stayed in China. A few months ago I was visiting Sydney again, an Asian professional (woman) flat out-of-the-blue said "We didn't move here from Hong Kong to live in China" and then went on a diatribe that its all the fault of fat 50 year old childless White women and their noodle-armed husbands. Add to this a very VERY visible increase in Somalian immigrants, and you have Australia. About 4 months ago I was in AU at a Kmart, not a White person in sight (other than working check-out, the entire store was filled with burka wearing Somalian immigrants, I'm going to assume it was Dole-Pay Day). A problem, if one were to frame it as such, not experienced in Japan - thankfully.

Blogger Oliver Cromwell March 15, 2018 9:56 AM  

Sure, so's every white country. Australia is much more white than America or Western Europe, or even Russia, and Chinese are much less of a demographic threat than Africans, mestizos, Pakistanis, etc.

Blogger bosscauser March 15, 2018 7:11 PM  

Rome became a polyglot multicultural police state!

And these entities always end badly!

We're next!

Blogger James Dixon March 16, 2018 12:25 PM  

> Your original point seemed to be there was some kind of practical impossibility that was shielding the British from immigration without them having to do anything or make any choices.

There was. There were only a handful of nations with the sea power to ship large numbers of people. Britain was one of them. They also had the power to prevent others ships from reaching them.

> By definition, one way movement is not free.

Liar.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts