7 Comments

Obama is the cynical narcissist who stoked a lot of the civil strife we are currently experiencing.

Expand full comment

Yes. Divisive politics and attitudes have been very consequential here in the US.

The pandemic with the accelerated increase in social media use and hours of internet per day that came with it is another very under-rated factor in the increase in unhappiness and pessimism and sense that the nation is in need of healing.

There's no full substitute for social contact in real life for maintaining our mental health.

Expand full comment

First, this is a beautiful thought and I would love to see Americans do this. I will try.

Second, I'm being a little facetious here but "And if we can internalize that lesson, then maybe we can change from a culture dominated by fear and anger back to a culture of open-mindedness and bipartisan problem-solving." Sounds a lot like we can "Make America Great Again" 😉

Expand full comment
Oct 27·edited Oct 27

When Freedom Becomes Oppression: The Orwellian Reality of Open Borders......

Frankly, I believe what you're seeing is a result of open borders and identity politics, and the inevitable fragmentation it produces. This is by design, as identity politics has been used throughout history by the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, and those responsible for the Rwandan genocide to sow division and consolidate power. Is it any surprise that there's a feeling of fragmentation now?

If you want a cohesive nation, you don't use identity politics as a tool! It has never created cohesive, well-functioning societies that work together and respect each other based on equal human rights and common humanity. (Which is a founding idea behind the Constitution and behind Western culture)

If you want to heal the nation, I suggest dropping identity politics and focusing on class-based solutions. Help the poor citizens regardless of their color. Help the needy citizens. Help those citizens who want a stable job and who are not hindered by an infinite influx of cheap labor from across the border – an influx that not only crushes their ability to demand fair pay, decent working conditions, and essential protections, but also destroys any hope of stability and upward mobility. The government should be fulfilling its social contract to look after its own citizens. Is it any wonder that many immigrants themselves are deeply concerned about the effects of uncontrolled immigration, recognizing that it undermines the very foundations of a stable and prosperous society?

This requires understanding the true nature of borders, and how governments themselves are complicit in their misuse. While designed as tools of economic manipulation, wielded by the wealthy to import cheap labor, drive down wages and erode worker rights, the problem is exacerbated by governments actively opening the floodgates. They've been bought out, essentially, sacrificing their own citizens to appease multinational corporations and globalist agendas. Open borders accelerate this race to the bottom, where countries compete by offering the "best deal" to corporations – meaning lower taxes, weaker labor unions, and fewer environmental regulations., This competition inevitably comes at the expense of everyday people, as nations are forced to slash social programs, cut public services, and sacrifice the well-being of their citizens to attract and retain corporate investment. The consequences are all around us: overcrowded schools, strained healthcare systems, rising crime rates, and a declining quality of life for ordinary citizens. Or, as Herman Daly phrased it, this system generates "illth" – the opposite of wealth, representing the social and environmental costs that are ignored in the pursuit of profit. The real moral underpinning of economic growth should be to allow people to achieve their dreams, but this system perverts that goal, prioritizing corporate profits over the well-being of individuals and communities.

But here we are at the ideological chasm, open borders. And I think largely because people don't understand that they are an economic tool. They don't represent freedom in any form! If you dare to question open borders, you're immediately branded a racist or a nativist. This is the insidious power of identity politics, wielded with precision by figures like George Soros. He cloaks himself in the mantle of philanthropy, presenting himself as a champion of open societies and human rights. Yet, his actions tell a different story. He funds organizations, prosecutors, and judges that promote open borders and mass immigration, all while his financial empire profits from the very chaos and instability these policies create. He exploits the language of compassion and humanitarianism, preying on the goodwill of those who genuinely seek to help others, while strategically directing their attention away from the economic realities faced by working people. This carefully crafted image of benevolence allows him to deflect criticism and silence dissent, painting anyone who questions his agenda as intolerant or bigoted. It's a masterful manipulation, a wolf in sheep's clothing, using the guise of humanitarianism to advance policies that ultimately serve his own financial interests and further consolidate his power and influence.

To truly understand the nature of open borders, I urge you to read Herman Daly's Ecological Economics. He exposes the Orwellian reality: while we're told open borders mean freedom – the freedom to move, the freedom to welcome others – the truth is far more sinister. In reality, open borders are economic tools wielded by the wealthy and multinational corporations. They exploit them to drive down wages, weaken environmental protections, and evade taxes. For everyday people, open borders don't represent freedom; they represent oppression. This is doublethink in action: using the language of liberty to mask a system designed to control and exploit.

The saddest part is that both sides of the political divide are being played. Those motivated by compassion and a desire to help others have been ideologically manipulated into prioritizing the needs of non-citizens, those outside their own communities, over the very people they should be helping as required by the social contract of being part of a community. They've been led to believe that any concern for their own people is inherently racist and nativist, a toxic form of nationalism that must be eradicated. This is especially true for academics and students, often beneficiaries of the very system they now seem eager to dismantle, who readily embrace the rhetoric of open borders without fully grasping the potential consequences for the less privileged members of their own society.

This isn't just about cheap labor and lost wages; it's about the calculated betrayal of an entire generation, raised on the ideals of global citizenship and open borders, only to discover that these noble aspirations are being weaponized against them. Their dreams of a fair and compassionate world are being used to justify policies that ultimately benefit the few at the expense of the many, leaving them feeling disillusioned and betrayed by the very system they were taught to believe in.

But the manipulation runs deeper. The open-borders agenda exploits this compassion, using the language of freedom and humanitarianism to mask a system designed to control and exploit. It preys on the idealism of the well-meaning while serving the interests of the wealthy and powerful who profit from the cheap labor, depressed wages, and eroded worker protections that open borders create.

Meanwhile, those who see the devastating consequences of this agenda – the strain on public services, the erosion of communities, the increasing economic inequality – are demonized and silenced, branded as heartless bigots for daring to prioritize the well-being of their own nation. In the end, both sides become pawns in a game rigged by those who seek to dismantle national sovereignty and consolidate power on a global scale, their utopian visions a smokescreen for the very real exploitation and suffering they leave in their wake.

I urge you to read Herman Daly's Ecological Economics to understand the weaponization of borders for the everyday person who just wants to buy a house, fall in love, have a family and be able to pay for their food and their future. It's important to see through the shallow pretenses often used to defend open borders, such as the claims of  [economic benefits of migration] which often boil down to a focus on GDP growth that doesn't necessarily translate to a better quality of life for most citizens, masking issues like wage stagnation, increased inequality, and the strain on public services. Similarly,  [humanitarian concerns], while important, should not be used to manipulate our compassion or conflate the role of government with that of a charity. (Private citizens can always support other people, but it should not be like the Mafia, where you must contribute!) Prioritizing the needs of non-citizens over the well-being of a nation's own people can have devastating consequences, and using guilt and emotional blackmail to silence dissent is a cynical tactic. These arguments distract from the real issues of economic inequality, exploitation, and the erosion of worker rights, all of which are exacerbated by uncontrolled immigration. The "aging population" argument for open borders is a blatant smokescreen. Those same economic "geniuses" who shipped jobs overseas to boost their profits now want to import cheap labor because their policies made it impossible for people to afford having children. It's a self-made crisis used to justify exploiting both citizens and immigrants, driving down wages for everyone. These arguments distract from the real issues of economic inequality, exploitation, and the erosion of worker rights, all of which are exacerbated by uncontrolled immigration.

Ultimately Open borders harm both citizens and immigrants, creating a system where everyone loses except the elites.

Expand full comment

The very idea that class based politics will someone cure the nation of its major divisions is flat wrong. If we have learned anything from the past century it is that concern over a class of people is one of the easiest things in the world to fake and to employ in a campaign to destroy human freedom and dignity. None of the ills of a society referred to in this post come close to the horrors inflicted on humanity by leaders who claim to speak for the working class. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others are the real villains in history and the great leaders of corporate America are among the real heroes. The use of class as a basis of identity will make the current fragmented identify politics look tame and harmless by comparison.

Expand full comment
3 hrs ago·edited 3 hrs ago

There's nothing tame about identity politics! It was used in the Russian Revolution. Hitler's Germany, Mussolini, Polpot, the Cultural Revolution in China and Rwanda. Identity politics never creates a society that binds together in kindness and empathy, It is a tool to create division and the dehumanization it also works against the Constitution and the concept of equal human rights based on common humanity. There has never been one time in history where identity politics has created a kind society. Leaders who claim to represent the working class have a mixed track record, with some inflicting horrors on humanity while others have achieved significant good.

My argument here is that we do not use identity politics at all and that DEI initiatives, which prioritize specific identity groups, are inherently discriminatory and violate the fundamental principle of equal treatment under the law. True assistance should be based on need and merit. If we want to help citizens who have paid into the system, we should prioritize the 'deserving poor' – those who have demonstrated a consistent track record of responsibility and contribution, but who, through circumstances beyond their control, have fallen on hard times.

We shouldn't distinguish between the poor black man and the poor white person – that path only leads to further division and discrimination. Instead, we should focus on helping those individuals, regardless of race or other identity markers, who have consistently shown a commitment to being productive members of society. This is about upholding the social contract: citizens who have already contributed to the system, and in return, the government provides a safety net for those who have earned it through their contributions but find themselves facing unforeseen hardship

Expand full comment

Widespread loss of faith or cynicism about democratic institutions is one thing. Overturning elections, terminating articles of the Constitution, lying pathologically in the public sphere, undermining norms of civility, and disregarding posse comitatus are clear and present dangers. On some issues, the best response is forceful, principled, nonviolent opposition, not agreeing-to-disagree or reaching-across-the-aisle.

Expand full comment