The US$100 trillion case for open borders

theconversation.com/the-us-100-trillion-case-for-open-borders-72595
What's you opinion on this?
I like Nick Srnicek, I really do, an I agree with many things he writes, but from reading his twitter he seems to be in a dangerously close relations with the whole idpol and "refugees do nothing wrong" crowd.
So I have kinda mixed feelings of him now and of this article in particular.

Other urls found in this thread:

twitter.com/n_srnck
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

He has the forehead of an egoist.

he needs a big head to hold all the big brain of his

Don't be taken in by the idpol smears. Open borders are probably the least idpol thing you can do by any standards.

Well, I mean it's not like I don't want no borders in perspective too,
But in the context of the ongoing refugee crisis it seems a bit, I don't know, naive maybe. With the whole "just like open borders and get money" thing. Like what could possibly go wrong.

Here is a twitter in question.
twitter.com/n_srnck
Btw read The Acellerationist Manifesto, I tend to agree with almost everything in there, but mainly because I'm a Negri boy too.

How about open borders for Ireland first?

What it has to do with Ireland?
This guy is like from UK with slavic surname.

JUDEN
U
D
E
N

Not advocating open borders (at least not in the near future), but it is objectively anti-idpol whatever way you look at it.

All I claim is that the nativist right are some of the biggest idpolers around no matter how much they claim otherwise. They can argue on the basis of economics and cultural homogeneity, but don't ever try to claim that being pro-borders is being anti-idpol. Utter nonsense.

Well, I guess this particular article is not as idpol per se, but in the context of the stuff he posts on twitter sometimes and of the current situation it may seem a bit in the "refugees and other muslim migrants do nuffin wrong" line of thought.

Yes. That's what we need. Another 100 trillion dollars of mass consumption, resource depletion and pollution!
Because EVERYONE needs to live a wasteful ravenous western lifestyle and enjoy the spoils of the throw-away culture.

How can ANYONE be happy without a mcmansion, three cars and at least four vacations to the ends of the earth a year?
How can ANYONE live a fulfilling life without being able to buy the latest gadgets every 6 months, wear only the latest fashion and having all your fast food wrapped in at least four layers of packaging?
How can ANYONE be expected to live without having at least four children, 12 grandchildren and three meals of factory meat a day?

MORE! MORE! MORE!

And disregarding all the possbile complications that may come with it, this claim about 100 bajillion dollars actually makes sense.

The left argument for borders is the left argument for states–because without borders, effective states don't exist, and states are the only thing standing between you and porky. States drift from representing the interests of their constituency more and more the farther removed they are in distance and scale. A "world state" would be totally controlled by porky.

Also, actually giving each ethnic group their home turf ("safe space") in addition to the common area where everyone mingles is the only way to address the constant friction that is exploited by idpolers–unless you believe the white phenotype deserves to be snuffed completely out of existence for its sins.

Ironically, it's also the only way to really preserve diversity.

Sorry but in the communist society I want to live in a mansion surrounded by robo-maids, not in the forest wiping my butt with leafs.

Utilizing leaves as primitive toilet paper is toolmaking, off to gulag (big hole in the floor) with you.

Where would you geographicaly place that common area? Like in the Americas, and Europe should be an ethnic white paradise?
All phenotypes should be mixed in a huge hellish melting pot tbh. More genetic variables = more diversity.

...

Again, I'm not arguing for or against open borders, just stating the facts.

On a personal level, the thing I would like to see more of a move towards is decentralised 'micro-states' of sorts where your membership is not necessarily defined by where you were born, but the group whom your personally identify with.

This is something which for the first time in human history, could actually become possible due to us now living in age of the internet. In our day to day lives, we have so many choices on which groups we want to be part of, but the nation is something which can be something we are somewhat forced into, and can be very difficult to change depending on where you were born and your economic standing.

This is sort of what Democratic Confederalism is about. People that believe everything will be better if we just tear down the borders and let everyone freely intermingle need to have a reality check.


We'd have a much better shot at this with a lower world population.
There is no way for all those people to come to the west and still allow a sustainable life for everyone. It simply cannot be done.

If they all end up consuming the way the native population does, it will kill the planet.

It doesn't even need to be one place. Chinatowns can exist alongside Eurotowns.

Okay, but every race except European has brown/black hair and brown/black eyes……

Capitalism's destruction of the middle class is handed to us on a silver platter, this is an easy win for us, and the left is gonna throw it away on insane shit like this.

That's why I have problems with that article. To have the world with open borders is a long and complex process, I believe it needs to be done in perspective, but you can just open the borders in one day and expect the world not to fucking collapse into chaos. It could be done if we already had communism or something, but now it would be just a mess.

Nobody is forcing you to mate with blacks though, just have children with blonde blue eyed girls if you want to.

The faster the world is inhabitable to humans, the better as far as I'm concerned.

Funny enough I first posted this article on Holla Forums for the fun of it and the main comprehensive arguments were "the world will turn into a hell" and "all the money would go to sheckelbergs"

LEL

100T for fucking who, GDP means nothing, it's 100T to the top, zero to the bottom, lower wages, ethnic strife, destruction of social bonds.

Somebody slap this fucking retard, you don't fucking plan your economy around refugees and immigrants.

bookchin didn't have to die for this shit

He should've seen it coming, it's a leftist tradition. See everything from Marx to Lenin to USSR

bullshit. Based on false assumptions.

I noticed that the nazi guys get to fuck comrade girls. I never see communist bros fuck nazigirls. Why is that? Are we not "bad" enough for most women?

I feel like this would give America even less revolutionary consciousness, if many laborers arrive who are excited to work for scraps

In reality, third-worlders will make less money in rich countries than natives because they're more willing to accept low pay in a rich country, as it is still better than their homeland. By massively increasing the labor supply, this will harm poorly-educated first-world workers. This is a small price to pay for third-world poverty reduction, so we should take as many as is environmentally reasonable.

open borders are good, this means we can freely travel around the world to bash both the neetsoc fash and the mudshit fash

explain

Holla Forums false flag

No. Holla Forums would be whining about anuddah shoah and probably favor invading and ethnically cleansing poor countries to make room for white settlers.

All advocating open borders gets you is ethnonationalist backlash and lost elections.

Keep the borders shut and focus on building communism in the west. Let some people get FALC first.

Who said anything about winning an election? The goal should be for the Communist party to take power and abolish the state, private property, money, and wage labor and institute a planned economy with production for use. This is not going to win any elections.

Not everything is about murrica, burger.

This is true that when they get to the west, if government were to reduce worker priviledges, like mimimal wage, etc, it would create backlash and workers movements, which could lead somewhere.

The goal isn't to create a backlash that leads to socialism, but to improve the lives of poor third-worlders.

Good luck with that.

How does being ethnically cleansed improve their lives exactly?

Why not both, eh?

how does seeing my area flooded by immigrants help me

we don't have to worry about elections if porky ends up beliving open boerders will give him more profits

its a perfect trojan horse

Was it his plan all along? Nick is a literal accelerationist so it would make sense.