Monday, August 22, 2016

Sputnik International National Borders Politicians' 'Worst' Invention - EC President

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker stated that borders are the worst invention ever made by politicians.
Nationalism, internationalism, and globalism. These will be key issues in the coming century. IN the long run there will be one people, one planet, the issues are getting from here to there considering hysteresis and path dependence, as well as cognitive-affective-volitional bias. The solution involves a shift in culture that manifests in institutional change.

This can be the result of imposition by elites, natural development that shifts the real forces (foundations, factors) of production that determine the possibilities for social relations, or revolutions. Imposition by elites will meet fierce resistance and set the natural process of development back, which could led to revolutions.

The transnational corporate totalitarianism as neoliberal neo-imperialism that "liberal" elites are foisting on their peoples and the world is not going to work, at least without severe repression of dissent and surveillance-police states that contradict the globalist program of eliminating national borders.

Sputnik International
National Borders Politicians' 'Worst' Invention - EC President


MRW said...

borders are the worst invention ever made by politicians.

That's as stupid as saying that the family is the worst invention as a social unit.

None of us would agree that others who live in our communities should have 100% access to our individual dwellings and our individual bank accounts at their behest and pleasure, and who can determine who we are allowed to hire to fix our dwellings and take care of our children, just because the most powerful families have decreed it should be so. Then why would anyone agree to it on a macro level?

The creation of the nation state was a civilizational advance, barely 200 years old. The US creation of mini-states united within a larger state was a further advance.

Blowing this up because a bunch of transnational companies want unfettered access now, with no checks and balances, and with their mitts on the legal and financial control within each country, is an insanity.

MRW said...


I love you. What you highlight here is something I check three times a day, at a minimum. Please understand that. You are a valuable and necessary steward of this site.

But what the fuck does this mean:
the issues are getting from here to there considering hysteresis and path dependence, as well as cognitive-affective-volitional bias

Yeah, yeah, I'm a double-master, I know what you're saying. But does Mr. Joe Public?

You need to spend the extra time it requires to distill your message into a more universally acceptable observation.

Jes' sayin'. AND UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES DO I INTEND ANY INSULT. None at all. It's just that those of us fortunate enough to have received advanced degrees and education need to get our heads out of our asses and talk plain English without insulting the intelligence of those who are braving the consequences of elite malfeasance.

Tom Hickey said...

No problem, MRW. To put it simply globalizing human consciousness from "here" is likely to take quite a bit of time to get "there," which one could conceptualize on the analogy of the US and the states. There are borders and states have a modicum of control over what happens within the border allowing for cultural and institutional differences, but the borders don't mean much day to day. for all practical purposes for most people.

But even after several hundred years there is still a lot tribalism in the US and while the US becoming a fully integrated multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society, there are still many rough edges and pockets of resistance.

Most importantly through American in general identify with nationality rather than the state where they were born or where they happen to live, and less people are likely to spend there lives in one location.

There will come a day that everyone generally thinks of themselves as fellow human beings and citizens of Planet Earth. But the is not just around the corner for most people, although there are already quite a few people that think this way now.

Gary Hart said...

Is Europe supposed to be the blueprint for this one world government? Doesn't seem as if it will work. Looks like Russia, China and Iran are protesting.

Bob said...

The 1% tend to view themselves as 'citizens of the world'. Comes with jet-setting across the globe, I suppose.

tokyozul said...

Thank you Tom for the explanation, and thank you MRW for encouraging him :)

John said...

Are we talking about borders in principle? Well, how did national borders come about? They were the result of war and conquest that was little short of genocide (native Americans in the US, Celts in the UK, etc). They are the result of savage immorality. Are they even natural? No, they're not. So what exactly is the principled argument for borders?

How about in practice. Borders and nationalism exist, and it's going to be a hard slog to rewire people's brains against these immoral pathologies, just in the same way it was difficult to rewire people's brains against racism and male chauvinism.

Globalisation and imperialist wars also puts extreme pressure on those trying to escape disaster zones and simply try to cross an artificial line on the ground. Unless you redistribute technology, education and wealth in a way that stops millions of people trying to leave the disaster zones for the imperial core, this tendency is only going to accelerate. Fascists who get off on watching people drown in the Mediterranean will probably get voted in. The answer, as ever, is blame the victim.

Tom Hickey said...

Is Europe supposed to be the blueprint for this one world government? Doesn't seem as if it will work. Looks like Russia, China and Iran are protesting.

In a sense, yes. But the European project is to replicate the structure of the United States with federated or at least confederated semi-sovereign states.

However, even in the US, it took a civil war to impose the federation and now there are strong secessionist and confederate movements afoot. Even under fairly ideal circumstances union or even open community has proved difficult if not elusive. Recall that the US had a frontier and abundant resources during its development, but even that required the conquest and virtual extermination of the indigenous population.

Transitions that are imposed either from without or by elites are not very stable, as the European "experiment" is proving. Natural processes are incremental and iterative. This first step is likely to fail in Europe, but in the long run as conditions equalize over the globe, then greater openness will happen on its own because it is more effective and efficient and nature is based on the law of least action.

So one could say that Soros has the right idea with promoting the open society, but he is going about it in the wrong way that is leading to instability and conflict, probably because he motive is not pure and is mixed with increasing his assets and scope of influence.

Gary Hart said...

To me the difference in America and the EU is that America began as people standing up to bankers and forming a union against them whereas the EU began as the bankers taking over the people and draining the wealth from the continent. Since the EU began over two centuries after the US it only seems that America's model has been rejected for a new banker model set up in the EU. In fact that seems to be the model the bankers want for the US. Would you not suspect that the EU model is the new world order model?

Tom Hickey said...

Well, the Bankers took over the US, too. Sen Dick Durbin (D-IL) – "The banks own the place (US Congress)."

I don't think that the problem is as much with the model as with the institutional implementation, and that is a matter of class, power and wealth. Marx got that roughly right and no political economy worth anything can ignore these three key asymmetries.