It appears that multiculturalism actually destabilizes and weakens society, and does not actually strengthen society. Duh, that's the point, and why it was forced down our throats in the first place—to subvert and destabilize western culture and society to the point that we are easier to take over and rule with totalitarian forms of governance. The illiberal left are just beginning to discover that their ideas don't actually translate to positive results, and it's a tough pill to swallow. Will they love truth more than the lie, or will they double down and push even harder until they engineer their own downfall?
This is where I diverge from both the illiberal left and those who claim to be Voluntaryists and Anarcho-capitalists, because I understand the need for healthy psychological boundaries, and I understand psychologically how an identity is formed, and how multiculturalism is detrimental to the stability of both individual and collective identities. Wide open borders will create too much chaos, and lead to the downfall of a liberal society. The anarchists are cutting off their nose to spite their face, meaning, they're willing to do themselves psychological harm just to get a stateless society—which will in fact do the opposite—create the need for the State to govern them after their cultural mental breakdown occurs. In a similar manner, the illiberal left is also cutting off their nose to spite their face, meaning, that they are willing cram diversity down our throats and risk crumbling into a tyranny, just so that they can pretend that they are good, loving, and tolerant people on the way down.
Uhm, no. When I was a child, my dad could drive into and out of Mexico or Canada without issue or harassment. In Europe people walk across imaginary borders all the time without issue. There should be no impassable borders.
This isn't about culture. If your culture violates basic concepts of natural law, you will be punished for your actions. Anarchists believe in the NAP (Non-aggression principle). Go anywhere you want in other words, but be peaceful when there. Otherwise you're not welcome.
America was founded by multiculturalism. People came from ALL over, and they had all sorts of different religious beliefs. Wars were fought in Europe over different religious beliefs. Those people left Europe though because of government tyranny against people who had different beliefs.
Those people were not violent either. They just wanted to have their own beliefs without being forced to have different ones. That is the exact issue some Muslim nations have today. Secular nations are destroyed, such as Syria, but ones like Saudi Arabia are considered allies?
Come on! This stuff isn't exactly hidden from us.
I have a fence around my property, and yet I have somehow still been able to abide by the NAP, how is that possible? What the NAP only people forget is that Natural Law is made up of TWO complimentary principles, the Feminine Non-Aggression Principle and the Masculine Self-Defense Principle. Healthy boundaries are the Self-Defense Principe, while respecting the boundaries of others is the NAP. Is it a violation of the NAP to exercise Self-Defense? How is exercising self-defense of my individual or group's property being aggressive? Is not their intrusion on my/our property the initial aggressive act?
Enough with the black and white, monological thinking. It's time to mature our ideas, use multilogical thinking, and look at things from other viewpoints and frames of reference, such as psychological, historical, cultural, economic, etc. If an individual has the right to protect their property with clearly delineated boundaries, then why wouldn't a nation of individuals also have the right to protect their group's property with clearly delineated boundaries? The data suggests that multiculturalism and wide open borders is psychologically harmful to all involved, and causes psychological contraction and introversion, and not expansion and connection to the greater community. Self-defense does not cause psychological harm to others, but protects oneself from psychological harm, aka, protects oneself from aggression. Therefore, multiculturalism is aggression, and a violation of my person and property.
I'm going to buy land on that magical border of yours and allow people to walk through it then. Why do you get to decide whether someone comes on my private property or not?
In other places of the world, people literally walk right across borders all the time without issue. You've been brainwashed into thinking we need to have walls, guards, etc. like a prison. How did that work out for the East Germans? How's that working for the North Koreans? The Palestinians? Walls are not just used to keep people out. They are also used to keep people in!
I guess the Native Americans should have built walls and stopped the early settlers from coming here then too, right? After all, how dare those people come here without visas and permission?!
It's pretty funny too that your go by "The Unity Process," but you are arguing to separate people by imaginary borders.
Requiring people to be peaceful is fine. Protecting private property rights is also fine. Restricting people's free travel is not though. I shouldn't have to get permission to travel from a government.
Again, the USA was founded on multiculturalism. It had wide open borders. Expecting people to abide by cultural norms, based on natural law, the NAP, and self defense, is a good thing. Preventing people from traveling freely though is tyrannical.