There's a lot of talk regarding national borders, especially here in the United States where it is quite common to hear people discussing how "illegal immigrants" are undermining the fabric of our society, stealing our jobs, reaping benefits they don't deserve and raising all sorts of havoc.
I find myself wondering why it is that so many human beings feel that other human beings should be confined to geographic locations designated by borders that exist only in our imaginations. How is it that we are not allowed to travel freely and live where we choose upon the Earth of which we were born, yet a Canadian goose can do so without passports, papers and permission from the pornographic pedophiles of the Transportation Security Administration?
I think many people that support the division -- or perhaps confinement would be a better word -- of certain cultural elements of the human race do so not because they have thought about such things them selves, but because they have been infused with this mindset by governments and the media. It's something many simply take for granted; you need a passport to travel here, papers to work there and pink form BS-9999-A to visit that country because it's on some government invented blacklist and that's just the way it is. Without borders the planet would erupt in chaos, right? I think there are some very important questions that are being overlooked regarding borders however, as well as much broader issues.
The more curious among us might wonder who it is that benefits from restricting free travel? Borders are founded and enforced by governments, not populations. Without them governments would not be able to control those that reside within their established territories and i think regional governments might ultimately disappear as a result, along with a lot of the money they extort through taxation and penalties from those under their control. Perhaps the entire monetary system that has enslaved the people of every "developed" nation on the planet would also collapse without borders. And if the monetary system collapsed, so would Wall Street, Ponzi schemes, the IRS, the CIA, the NSA, the U.N., the CFR, state militaries, and, yes, even the Bilderberg Club and many of the other secret societies.
Illegal immigrants are ultimately human beings which, like all of us, were born of this Earth; this one, tiny, incredibly beautiful planet we all share. I think it is quite ironic that some of us, especially in the U.S. apparently, attempt to somehow legitimize the term "illegal immigrant", in the face of the fact that the only people that reside here that aren't immigrants are native Americans, of which there would be a lot more of today hadn't we "Americans" slaughtered around 80-90% of them. And what does one have to do to become an "illegal immigrant"? One has to cross an imaginary line and, presto, they can now be arrested, locked in a cage and sent back to where they didn't want to be in the first place.
OK, so tomorrow it is announced to the world that all national borders will become defunct at 12 midnight, UTC time (FOX News reports that Iran is to blame and Israel calls the whole thing anti-Semitic and begins purchasing massive quantities of bricks and mortar). Now what? Chaos? Murder? War? Do people from one former country suddenly pull up stakes and move elsewhere?
In September of 2009, the town of Portishead, England (pop. 22,000) conducted an experiment in which they turned off the traffic lights on a congested roadway for nearly a month. Many people thought the idea was simply ludicrous and articles were written condemning the experiment even before it commenced. The results were quite different than what many prophesied however; people were generally courteous and began to pay attention to each other instead of the traffic lights and they quickly adapted to the situation. Congestion was greatly reduced as well as the time spent traveling through the area. Petty arguments over traffic congestion stopped and apparently there were no accidents at all during the test.
Following is a quote from the article, "Naked Streets" Without Traffic Lights Improve Flow and Safety:
"A new hierarchy emerges with vulnerable road users at the top. Pedestrians in the shared space scenario, when there are no lights to dictate behavior, are seen as fellow road users rather than obstacles in the way of the next light."
So let's take a stab at wrapping my non-original concept of an Earth without government borders around the no traffic lights experiment...
I think the above quote is very interesting and revealing because it tells us that, without the lights, pedestrians were now seen more as equals rather than "lower class" obstacles by their mechanized wielding counterparts. The traffic lights (the borders) were removed and thus the "class division" between the vehicle operators and the pedestrians was also removed, at least to some degree. People seemed to have gotten along better and found that a way of life, if you will, that they might have never thought feasible was in fact not only feasible, but substantially improved without the government dictating behavior through a binary system of traffic lights, telling everyone when it's OK to do something and when it is not, as though it were utterly inconceivable that people could figure this out on their own.
UNGRIP is one of my favorite documentary films which explores in great detail what it means to be a free, responsible, sovereign human being with as little reliance on "the system" as possible:
Of course there is much more to consider when one contemplates what society might look like without borders and since i'm no expert on the subject by any stretch of the imagination, it would be somewhere between incredibly difficult and bloody impossible for me to paint any kind of an accurate picture. There are however a number of benefits that come to mind, perhaps the most important of which is that the size, power and intrusiveness of government would be greatly reduced. There would also be a cascade of what many of us agree would be hugely positive changes, including the dissolution of many local and international government entities and assets such as the U.N., NATO, intelligence communities, militaries, nuclear weapons and other arms, and a whopping pile of others. Language barriers might eventually dissolve and one would be free to travel and live where they choose instead of where a government allows. And of course there would be no wars fought over imaginary lines. Speaking of war, does one ever wonder what the true purpose of government sponsored war really is? Here are some interesting quotations from a document titled, REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN: ON THE POSSIBILITY AND DESIRABILITY OF PEACE:
The war system not only has been essential to the existence of nations as independent political entities, but has been equally indispensable to their stable internal political structure. Without it, no government has ever been able to obtain acquiescence in its "legitimacy," or right to rule its society. The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power. The historical record reveals one instance after another where the failure of a regime to maintain the credibility of a war threat led to its dissolution, by the forces of private interest, or reactions to social injustice, or of other disintegrative elements. The organization of a society for the possibility of war is its principal political stabilizer.[...]
The basic authority of a modern state over its people resides in its war powers. [...] On a day- to-day basis, it is represented by the institution of police, armed organizations charged expressly with dealing with "internal enemies" in a military manner. Like the conventional "external" military, the police are also substantially exempt from many civilian legal restraints on their social behavior. In some countries, the artificial distinction between police and other military forces does not exist. On the long-term basis, a government's emergency war powers -- inherent in the structure of even the most libertarian of nations -- define the most significant aspect of the relation between state and citizen.
By now some of you might be thinking that i'm aligned with "them". You know, that fascist/communist/elitist self-serving scum that has infected the Earth like a plague, sucking the life-force out of us and promoting their New World Order ideology, complete with a one-world government and universal religion ... and no traditional borders. Except i'm not. Their idea of a New World Order is based on a top-down control system through fear and enslavement while the concept i am promoting is based on a bottom-up co-op with freedom, harmony and education at its core. It is entirely free of bankers and traditional monetary systems. Personally i think Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco got it right...