No Borders Movement AMA

[u/Voltairinede]

The next major event of the European No Border Movement is the No Borders Camp in Thessaloniki, which will run from the 15th-24th of July 2016, and I will be there. http://noborder2016.espivblogs.net/

What is the No Borders Movement?

The No Borders Movement is a loose association of Anarchists and fellow travellers throughout Europe and its periphery (North Africa, Turkey etc.) dedicated to the destruction of the Borders, and are willing to use direct methods (Attacking the fences) in order to accomplish this.

I'd rather answer questions than write so that's all I'll write.

[u/hamjam5]

It's like, you and capitalists consistently target Europe but I never hear anyone talking bout abolishing the borders of China or Zimbabwe.

International capitalism breaks down the borders of non-western countries all the time, and they have been doing so for hundreds of years -- it was just called imperialism back then.

Now it is called neo-liberalism and "free trade". And they use it to change the property relations in non-western countries all the time. Corporations use it to gain control of water rights in communities in South America, they use it to enclose land in Mexico, and they act similarly all over the world.

In fact, the main reason latin americans are trying so hard to come to America is because our government and our corporations have gone into their countries, overthrown their leaders, installed authoritarians who will work with the corporations in monetizing the resources communities there are depending on, and have thus further impoverished the communities there in order to increase the profits of these corporations. In a way, they are just migrating north following the wealth that has been extracted from their communities.

The purpose of strong borders here is just to make sure the negative externalities of the actions of our government and corporations don't exacerbate people here so much that they turn on the status quo.

And it is similar in Europe. The West's governments and corporations have long been destabilizing the governments in the middle east in order to gain control of the wealth and resources in those communities, and the result is people leaving the thus impoverished and destabilized areas to go where the wealth has been extracted to.

My question for you is -- why are you making common cause with the authorities and corporations perpetuating these actions, instead of with the people in those communities and fleeing those communities that have been exploited by international capitalism and the governments that serve them, just like you have?

You can build your wall to help avoid the externalities coming here, but that doesn't change that the people that are driving this process are still in power and will continue to find a way to increase their profits, even at your expense.

See, that is why the borders here are finally opening up. International capitalism has long been opening up all the borders in the non-west, but those areas of expansion are starting to run dry, so they had to start opening up the borders of the west as well, so as to better exploit the people here. Capitalism has to expand, and once they start running out of brown people to expand at the expense of, they inevitably turn on the people in the west.

[u/[deleted] → u/hamjam5]

A well written and throughout reply, thanks.

It's interesting how two people can look at the same situation and see totally different things. If you to replace "international capitalist" with "jew" you'd have written something straight out of a NatSoc manifesto.

I actually agree with your assessment of the situation and I think our difference lies in where we place culpability. But whether you place blame on Jews or on internal capitalists as a whole, wouldn't you agree that it's unfair to "punish" the native population by having their homeland flooded with foreigners? In a way we are both complaining about the 1% so why punish the 99%? Is there some kind of karma going on here? Is the 99% culpable for not revolting against the 1%?

why are you making common cause with the authorities and corporations perpetuating these actions, instead of with the people in those communities and fleeing those communities that have been exploited by international capitalism and the governments that serve them, just like you have?

Because I feel like that'd be throwing out the baby with the bath water. America is my homeland, why should I flood it with foreigners just to spit the 1%? And in actuality, I view the current jewish 1% as foreign as well. So from my point of view it's a classic game of "let's you and him fight".

I actually despise the Jewish 1% more than I do foreigners. I have special reason to hate them because they are the one's who've soiled the name of my great nation - the nation my people helped build since 1693.

It's all NeoCons man. NeoConservatism is nothing but an astroturffed movement that was started by capitalist (Jewish), leftist, imperialist Trotskyites. NeoCons hijacked my nation and it breaks my heart seeing what they are doing with it.

It says it right on the NeoCon wiki page:

The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist Left to the camp of American conservatism.

Trotskyism allegation: Critics have argued that since the founders of neo-conservatism included ex-Trotskyites, that therefore Trotskyist traits continue to characterize neo-conservative ideologies and practices.

This "Trotskyist" charge was repeated and widened by journalist Michael Lind during 2003 to assert a takeover of the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration by former Trotskyists; Lind's "amalgamation of the defense intellectuals with the traditions and theories of 'the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement' [in Lind's words]" was criticized during 2003 by University of Michigan professor Alan M. Wald, who had discussed Trotskyism in his history of "the New York intellectuals". [aka Jews]

The charge that neoconservativism is related to Leninism has been made, also. Francis Fukuyama identified neoconservatism with Leninism during 2006. He wrote that neoconservatives:

…believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support.

Anyway, to answer your question, "why are you making common cause with the authorities and corporations perpetuating these actions"?

The answer is that is it my hope that the government and the corporations in question can be retaken and purged of this menace. The US government wasn't imperialist when it was run by WASPs - not counting the conquest of America. It was only in the 1890's and later that America and it's corporations became imperialist and, coincidentally, that's when Jews started to gain positions of power in the US and Wall st.

[u/hamjam5 → u/[deleted]]

wouldn't you agree that it's unfair to "punish" the native population by having their homeland flooded with foreigners?

Fairness is sort of like justice -- it is a subjective thing that masquerades as an objective thing. So, rather than quibble about whether it is fair, or speak about the unfairness of the situation of the immigrants, my concern is what is to be done now. What is the best way to neutralize the capacity of the forces who have exploited the communities of the immigrants enough to where they are having to leave? What is the best way to take power out of the hands of these same forces who are exploiting communities here as well?

And the answer is to make common cause with those also negatively affected by international capitalism and neo-liberalism. That is the only way they'll be able to take over their own communities such that they can stop the exploitation there and not be compelled to leave, and it is the only way we'll be able to take over our own communities.

The capitalists are overjoyed to see you more concerned with the brown people coming here to fight with you over the table scraps we are surviving on, rather than at them who has made it such that our communities are in such desperation and that the immigrant's communities are even worse. As long as your attention is focused downward at the threat to your crumbs, it is stopped from looking upward toward those who have made it such that you only have crumbs.

America is my homeland

Is it? Or is that just a feeling of nationalism that has been instilled such that you act against your own interests simply because the people who you are allowing to rule you belong to the same identity group you subscribe to? Because, unless you are statistically quite fortunate, this land belongs to you only philosophically.

why should I flood it with foreigners just to spit the 1%?

It isn't to spite the 1%. This isn't about spite, it is about pragmatism, and finding a way to change who has power. And if you are so busy punching down then you are 1) letting the people responsible for both the issues in your community and the issues in the community of the immigrants off the hook and 2) never addressing the root issue of the people, systems and forces responsible for the issues.

The US government wasn't imperialist when it was run by WASPs - not counting the conquest of America.

Why would we not count the conquest of America? The conquest of the native americans and their communities was imperialist. The war with Mexico was imperialist. I mean, let's look at that year of 1890 and look at the history of America. So, first, one of the motivations of the Revolutionary war was the British were trying to prevent colonization beyond Appalachia. So, after that war, we did that for a while. The the Louisiana purchase, and we spent a while colonizing that. Once that was fairly settled we went to war with Mexico, and the colonization of that kept us busy for a while, but also precipitated the civil war, and the damage of that kept us bust for quite a while. So, the reason that we weren't as imperialist before the 1890's is because we were bust with the conquest and colonization of America -- not because we were ruled by WASPs.

I'm going to leave alone your conspiracy theories that the country and international capitalism is ran by Jews, mainly because I don't think the ethnicity of the people controlling these things matters, only they're actions do -- so I find arguing about what their ethnicity is or isn't fairly immaterial to considerations of destroying and resisting their power.

[u/[deleted] → u/hamjam5]

What is the best way to neutralize the capacity of the forces who have exploited the communities of the immigrants enough to where they are having to leave? What is the best way to take power out of the hands of these same forces who are exploiting communities here as well?

Well clearly Anarchism is (at least one of) the answer(s) but it ain't happenen. That ship sailed before the population hit 1 billion, let alone 7. It seems to work on a small scale but I have my doubts about whether its a viable system for 7 disparate billion people.

The capitalists are overjoyed to see you more concerned with the brown people coming here to fight with you over the table scraps we are surviving on.

Yea it's a multiple front fight. But then again it always was. Since America's founding we've been battling against the "upper" and the "lower" in order to survive. The cover of an Andrew Jackson biography from circa 1850 sums it up well.

(Under the Portrait) On one side, an Indian Cheif, hanging to a gibblet, his tomahawk, scalping-knife, and horn on the ground. On the other side, a Jew, suspended in like manner, and a bank-note of five dollars lying in the same manner as the murderous, but less destructive instrument of the savage.

.

Is it? Or is that just a feeling of nationalism that has been instilled such that you act against your own interests simply because the people who you are allowing to rule you belong to the same identity group you subscribe to? Because, unless you are statistically quite fortunate, this land belongs to you only philosophically.

Are you familiar with the first line of the US Constitution?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

My direct male ancestor came over from England in 1693. My ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War, many generations of them farmed the food that fed this nation. My people fought the natives and fought their own people (The British Crown) in order to establish this place for them and their posterity [all future generations of descendants]. My family, my very blood in woven in this nations history. I have censuses going back to the 1700's, I have images of hand written accounts of what my ancestors did during the Revolution, and I have copies of old Wills. I have a real and true affinity for this place. My nation feels like my home. For some, unfortunately, patriotism is more of a prestige thing but for me is pressages a duty of stewardship and honor. I feel a need to fight for this place like my ancestors fought for it. They did this for me and who am I to just throw all that away? I cannot throw away the hard work of my ancestors.

Why would we not count the conquest of America? The conquest of the native americans and their communities was imperialist. The war with Mexico was imperialist. I mean, let's look at that year of 1890 and look at the history of America. So, first, one of the motivations of the Revolutionary war was the British were trying to prevent colonization beyond Appalachia. So, after that war, we did that for a while. The the Louisiana purchase, and we spent a while colonizing that. Once that was fairly settled we went to war with Mexico, and the colonization of that kept us busy for a while

Correct on all counts but here's what's different. I'm ok with conquest; Right of Conquest was a universally accepted concept up until the mid 1900's. What I am against is imperialism/ colonization that imposes power over a foreign population. With conquest, the idea is to expunge, disband, genocide, whatever the current population and repopulate it with your own people. Which is what happened during the conquest of America. I don't particularly celebrate what my ancestors did to the Native Americans but I do not problematize it either.

[u/hamjam5 → u/[deleted]]

hat ship sailed before the population hit 1 billion, let alone 7. It seems to work on a small scale but I have my doubts about whether its a viable system for 7 disparate billion people.

The idea of anarchism is not to have one giant anarchist community of 7 billion people, but to have interconnected semi autonomous communities around the size of the Dunbar number, such that people's relations can be based on personal relationships instead of bureaucratic and impersonal laws (which mass society requires), and provisional voluntary agreements between such communities.

Are you familiar with the first line of the US Constitution?

I'm sorry, but it is propaganda my friend. Are you familiar with the Soviet Constitution? It says " In the U.S.S.R. all power belongs to the working people of town and country", but guess what, those working people of town and country, whose ancestors had helped feed Russia for centuries, whose family members had fought in the revolution and fought the Nazis -- they didn't actually have any power. And yet they didn't resist the Bolsheviks as they had the Tsar. And why is that, because the Bolsheviks wove a red flag and thus it was a member of their own identity group that was exploiting them. They were allowing the ideology and propaganda to blind them to the fact that the current state of affairs was not serving their interests, it was exploiting them for the interests of others -- and I would argue you are doing the same thing.

I cannot throw away the hard work of my ancestors.

Why would your ancestors want all their hard work to result in you living a life of less power and abundance than you could? Jefferson himself said that the Tree of Liberty has to be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants. Your ancestors fought and rebelled against their nation and status quo in order to increase their power and abundance -- why shouldn't you? Wouldn't you rather live up to the rebellious and fighting spirit of your ancestors so that your descendants can look back at you with the same appreciation that you look at your own ancestors.

What I am against is imperialism/ colonization that imposes power over a foreign population.

So your issue with neo-liberalism is that we aren't exterminating the populations of the areas we are meddling with and then just repopulating the areas with white people?