Consume Product

> Freedom [practically necessitates] open borders

That's one of the reasons for which I consider 'national libertarianism' or 'libertarian nationalism' to be nonsensical and intellectually indefensible. Anything less than the universal is only defensible through a rejection of freedom: if we fail to eliminate this value from our belief systems, the universal (one global government, one mixed race, one global economy, etc.) actually becomes inevitable.

There is also the equalitarian aspect: equality for an individual also seems to necessitate open borders, because an individual's equality can be construed as deficient in some way if he cannot live where he wants. Liberals, unlike Leftists, do arbitrarily defend economic inequality, and so they will not insist that the poor should be free to live in wealthy neighbourhoods. But they will never again defend most other forms of inequality, such as the racial inequality that keeping racial others out of any particular place necessitates ('positive discrimination' aside). It isn't possible to maintain indefinitely the liberal nationalism that, for instance, White Australia was governed by for sixty or so years, because people will eventually realize that contradictions exist between liberalism and nationalism, which in Australia eventually led to liberalism's absolute triumph.

So the Democrats (and Republicans) are arriving at the same destination, the universal, by means of two paths.

> [Republicans] are just less extreme because they compromise individual freedom for homos and foreigners

As you are aware, Republicans are today more arbitrary and less dogmatic than Democrats. The arbitrary boundaries that they (and many Democrats) still defend, such as the notion of freedom *except* if you're an illegal immigrant, will eventually wither away if we continue on this path. The 5,000,000-40,000,000 illegal immigrants in America figure is actually an excellent achievement from the perspective of he who defends an as absolute and purified form of freedom as humanly possible, because it demonstrates that one of the last remaining obstructions on the road to its realization - America's national borders - is being defeated.

This is also why Leftists and liberals hated The Wall so vehemently. The Wall represented yet another attempt to place an arbitrary roadblock on the road to the realization of an as absolute and purified form of freedom as humanly possible. America had almost realized globalization in all but name, only for enough people who are less dogmatic about freedom to suddenly elect Trump who then proceeded to put up a few, feeble last-ditch defences to stop it, such as scuttling the Trans Pacific Partnership, and, of course, The Wall. Walls are anti-freedom: they close rather than open; they are opaque rather than transparent.

This is why I think it is logically incoherent that Leftists and liberals still live behind walls in their personal lives: keeping people out of their own homes ultimately represents yet another arbitrary constraint on freedom. If they were free from contradictions, which they are not, they would extrapolate their views of The Wall to their own walls and insist that they also be torn down. But the (true) Right is free from contradictions: we extrapolate our views of our own walls to The Wall. They are thus contradictorily pro-wall but anti-The Wall. We are thus non-contradictorily pro-wall and pro-The Wall.

As for Vlad's response, he does mention things some of which have made me rethink liberalism's relation to freedom in the past. My response is that liberals often also use harm avoidance (most notably, J. S. Mill) as a heuristic. The idiots all thought that Covid would cause immense harm (even though, anecdotally, only one person that I personally know well 'got Covid', and he, suspiciously, also happened to be one of the few who were vaccinated, and Covid was completely overblown in hindsight), so abrogating the following: freedom from mask mandates, freedom of bodily autonomy (e.g. freedom from vaccine mandates), and freedom to own a firearm, are not necessarily incongruent with liberalism.

They probably also thought in terms of conflicting freedoms: for instance, if we aimed for total elimination, it seems like we could either vaccinate everyone or have indefinite lockdowns. Thus freedom of bodily autonomy, such as freedom from vaccine mandates, collided with something that they saw as more important, such as freedom of movement or freedom to travel.

One also has to keep in mind that these people are flagrantly materialistic. After all, liberal democracy and 'capitalism' are often thought of as the political and economic counterparts of each other (e.g. in the works of the Leftist Marx and the liberal Fukuyama). (Of course, there are also tensions between liberalism and democracy, *a la* Schmitt, which we won't go into here.) Vaccinating everyone probably seemed to them to be economically more viable than indefinite lockdowns, which many liberals argued would 'crash' or 'destroy' their beloved economy. In conclusion, they could have thought of it in at least three ways: in terms of harm avoidance versus freedom, in terms of conflicting freedoms, and in terms of material well-being versus freedom. Pair all that with panic and uncertainty and it's easy to see why everything that they did at the time of Covid was extreme and unhinged. We were just lucky that we weren't facing something like the Spanish Flu, which would have caused incredible damage if these imbeciles and manchildren were running the world coeval with its rise.

In the end, total elimination completely failed and the Russo-Ukrainian War came along, which was more important to both Leftists and liberals. We now had an imagined Far-Right threat to defeat, a crusade against the Far-Right to be won. Covid alarmism thankfully died around that time. Other than the brief surge of interest that accompanies each new strain of Covid, everyone largely came to accept whatever Covid is as a basic fact of life.

Of course, it was actually freedom and equality that gave the world Covid. You might remember that when the Trump Administration first began placing travel bans on several countries, that the mass media decried it as 'racist'. They insisted that Covid wasn't serious and that it was being used as an excuse for racism. Kamala was the anti-vaxxer, saying that she would not take 'Trump's vaccine' that was being 'rushed' in time for the election so that Trump would look to be America's saviour from Covid.

But Biden's election was like flipping a switch in Leftists and liberals from Covid scepticism to Covid alarmism: all of a sudden, Covid was going to wipe out humanity, anti-vaxxers were all 'Far-Right', not wearing a mask was to be an 'attempted murderer'. The world descended into a Covid-induced insanity. I vaguely recall that there was even such as a crazy thing as 'hug a Chinese' at the time. Of course, due to similar clashes between freedom and equality we all remember that Covid alarmism left the George Floyd protests untouched. Social distancing was compulsory until the moment you joined Antifa or BLM. Why? Because the cause of racial equality overrode Covid alarmism.

These two values, freedom and equality, are a disease upon the late-modern world. Practically every evil of today is justified by them; even worse, practically every evil that could ever be can be justified by them, and practically every evil that will ever be will be justified by them.