This is why the idea of open borders is a non-starter and an inevitable failure when put into practice.
Here is an example to illustrate the preceding post. “But nationalism excluuuuudes!” people moan as if that had to put an end to all discussion of the subject once and for all. They have been schooled to believe that excluding is bad, inclusivity is good, and these are eternal truths that are not to be questioned.
Really, I am almost tempted to quote the entire post because it’s better than the summations I’ve attempted that have relied too much on esoteric explanations rather than more concrete examples. She’s right. We’ve been trained to believe that any form of exclusivity is bad and is “discrimination” when in reality discrimination of self from other is the basis of all life.
I am not using this to justify or apologize for racism or anything obviously harmful. I am observing as she did, though, without a “we” that’s recognized as a discrete entity then there is no possibility of a welfare state, of resisting corporate control or the power of capital — which of course the real goal of “open borders” rhetoric is to destroy not only the welfare state as an actuality but the idea of it altogether as even a possible thing (Margaret Thatcher’s “there is no alternative.”)
The brilliant (in a diabolical way) conflation of racism with any form of nationalism is an ingenious stroke by the forces of capital, though. Really, that’s a true coup because it removes any possibility of criticism or course changes.
Perhaps in 500 years or a thousand years we can expand the “we” to include the entire planet. I don’t think we’re even remotely close, though, and without a nation there is no welfare state, there is no safety net, and open borders will almost certainly be the doom of any and all of those ideas. Which, indeed, is the whole point of the propaganda push in that direction.