Professor Tabarrok discloses his foundational presupposition by way of a bastardized quote from the bastard Rousseau: ‘Man is born free, yet everywhere he is caged.’
Being a professor, you’d think he would have noticed this sentiment is not only false, but self-refuting. If everywhere caged, man certainly isn’t born free. Because by the nature of the case, one born amongst and subject to slave parents is born in captivity (Ex. 21:1-4). And all men are indeed bound by circumstance of nativity, time, and ability, not to mention being slaves to sin.
Meantime, Rousseau repudiated the only basis for genuine freedom which is found in Christian regeneration and law allowing man to live out his design under God.
But upon his cracked foundation Tabarrok lays also a crooked cornerstone: “All people should be free to move about the earth, uncaged by the arbitrary lines known as borders.”
If borders — the demarcation of possessions and jurisdictions — are dismissed as arbitrary, by extension of the same argument, all possessions and jurisdictions are invalidated. What, after all, is your property line registered with the County Recorder’s office but an ‘arbitrary’ border announcing possession and jurisdiction?
Not every place is equally well-suited to mass economic activity. Nature’s bounty is divided unevenly.
What happened to all that ‘born free’ talk?
As a rule, the most economically handicapped nations are the richest in resources. If, as alleged, the game were dictated by geography-bound resources, then the equatorial tribes would actually sweep the board.
But they don’t.
Because geographic resources aren’t the determinant factors. The people — human resources, if you will — are. Frankly, if the populations of Iceland and Haiti traded places Icelanders would shortly convert the hell that is Haiti into paradise. And infrastructure notwithstanding, the Haitians relocated to that frozen volcanic rock would shortly die. PC pearl-clutching aside, everyone knows this.
Variations in wealth and income created by these differences are magnified by governments. . . . Closed borders compound these injustices, cementing inequality.
Maistre wrote, “Every nation gets the government it deserves.” Because the character of a people will, at length, determine the character of their government. Newsflash, genius — tyrannies are what they are on account of the dispositions of their peoples.
The overwhelming majority of would-be immigrants want little more than to make a better life for themselves and their families.
Look, none doubt their motive of self-interest. But the objectives of the self-interest which they profess as they settle our lands is our overthrow and destruction. All cultures are motivated by an eschatology of dominion. And theirs is by no means a beneficent vision with respect to our people, past, present, or future.
The average Arab holds Western man the object of an ancient and indelible hatred. He means to topple all that defines us, and make us vassals of his global caliphate.
To the African, the Eurosphere is the prize in the conspicuous race war which the Western clerisy alone refuse to acknowledge.
Whereas Indian, Oriental, and Mestizo insist their beachheads here are staging for vengeance and reconquista.
Emma Lazarus’s ‘huddled masses’ are a ravening mob agreed on naught but their collective scapegoat, and its sacrifice. They imagine to propitiate for their own sins and avenge their natural conditions by pouring out boundless wrath upon the White man forever. Even if liberals like Tabarrok feign no knowledge of such things, his antipodal wards scream it from the rooftops for all to hear. And it cannot be otherwise, because all men necessarily seek scapegoats. And apart from Christ, His enemies invariably turn their vengeful gaze on those who most remind them of the Christ and His order.
Even Tabarrok’s position on this subject, which envisions the persistence of distinct White nations as the singular impediment to his eschaton, identifies the prof too as a fundamental savage at heart, and working toward the same Tower of Babel as every other heathen.
When a worker from a poorer country moves to a richer one, her wages might double.
Hot tip: those without neon hair or gender dysphoria are in no wise persuaded by this sort of verbal menstruation.
Geographical differences in wages also signal opportunity . . . empowering the migrants, of course, but also for increasing total world output. . . . Economists have estimated that a world of open borders would double world GDP. . . . Immigration is the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised.
It would take quite a stretch in Orwell’s Room 101 to be reeducated so thoroughly.
Setting aside the arithmetical incoherence of the notion, California’s open border and “sanctuary cities” dotting the land put this right down where the cats can get at it, affording us a real-world laboratory. The result? In every case, this “workers of the world unite” Marxist experiment ends not in multicult Xanadu, but in a crime- and poverty-ridden hellscape ruled by an aloof elite from their gated security redoubts. It works neither in theory nor in practice.
No standard moral framework, be it utilitarian, . . . Christian, or any other . . . regards people from foreign lands as less entitled. . . . Nationalism, of course, discounts the rights, interests, and moral value of “the Other,” but this disposition is inconsistent with our fundamental moral teachings and beliefs.
This level of wrong must take effort.
Fact is, Christendom has uniformly held to nationalism. “Nationalism, within proper limits, has the divine sanction; [to] obliterate all lines of distinction is everywhere condemned as contrary to the divine will. . . . [T]he whole idea is pagan and immoral. . . . Under the providence of God each race or nation has a positive purpose to serve, fulfillment of which depends on relative seclusion from others.”
Vos’s is indeed the standard view affirmed throughout the Christian era. Christianity, after all, formed the intellectual basis for nationalism in the Eurosphere. So Tabarrok is either lying, or entirely unfamiliar with the worldview that shaped our civilization the last two millennia. In light of his professorial vocation, however, my money is on the former.
Freedom of movement is a basic human right.
Problem. ‘Human rights’ are a scam of super predators. Repudiating God-given rights, they forgo the basis of all actual rights in favor of government-granted privileges to be dispensed and rescinded at the discretion of the world elite. The Declaration of 1948, ratified on the centennial of the Communist Manifesto, actually denies nationalist Christians to have any rights or humanity whatever. Thus laying the pretext to the very genocide that we see unfolding against us from Sweden to South Africa and all points West.
Tabarrok concludes his queer apologetic thus:
Closed borders are one of the world’s greatest moral failings but the opening of borders is the world’s greatest economic opportunity . . . a world of greater equality and justice.
Egad, what bilge.
Leaning on emotional manipulation slogans while ignoring the dystopian nightmare these ideas everywhere produce tells you he doesn’t believe what he’s saying. He knows these mechanisms are the Tiamat which felled empires and ground out untold nations. But he’s kinda into that, I guess.
What’s more, these nominalist dreams are likewise injurious to the objects of his purported philanthropy. As another academic, one Thomas Achord, told me recently, “Open borders is a means of ensuring third-world countries never become industrialized but remain agrarian peasant nations. The best, brightest, and richest move to the advanced nations. . . . The poorest, lowest IQ, least skilled remain behind.”
So those congenitally destitute objects of the professor’s telescopic philanthropy are also injured by this engineered brain drain. You cannot poach their natural aristocracy and expect improvement of national aptitude or general condition.
But the globalist has the remedy for this too — importing the whole world to the Eurostock nations. Whereby, as they tell it, the nations who had lived in intractable squalor and barbarism for millennia will somehow add a synergistic dynamism to White Christian civilization. Even though no matter where we look about the globe — from the Balkans to East L.A., diversity in proximity erodes social capital, deteriorates all mechanisms of cooperation and trust, and results in greater violence than any other circumstance. Such were the findings of Robert Putnam’s tour de force, Bowling Alone, and myriad other such studies since. But in truth, all such actuarials are superfluous, because everyone knew the nature of the case aforehand. Multiculturalism and pluralism are, by definition, disunity and discord. To pretend otherwise is just that — pretend.
For all his talk of a consensus among economists assuring us that importation of the third world will unlock limitless growth and prosperity, none but the most academic Malthusians assent to it. That, and imbeciles. Everyone else recognizes it immediately as a civilizational self-destruct protocol delivering Ragnarok to our doorstep.
Tabarrok’s article was an excerpt from his book, How to Save Humanity. Which, considering his alien malevolence, I’m pretty sure is a cookbook.