top of page
The Earth Party
Position on:
Globalism, Nationalism, and Borders
Both the Left and the Right have important insight into this issue.
A borderless world, if done correctly, is a world of Liberty, and it's something to aspire to. And it's achievable.
Not only achievable, but necessary. Humanity can no longer afford borders. We face crises on a planetary scale, and planetary crises require planetary solutions. And in order to find them, we need to think as one planet. Anything that divides and carves up our world into separate sections undermines our ability to do that. Borders hold us in the old way of thinking, which now threatens the integrity of the biosphere. We have to evolve if we want to survive.
We need Planetary Consciousness.
"Hey, but we need our borders! Look at all the chaos going on in the world! We gotta have a strong border, to protect ourselves!"
Borders are not the solution to the chaos. Borders are the CAUSE of the chaos. They artificially restrict the free movement of people, and constrict the natural flow of the planet's energies.
Imagine if you erected barriers between various parts of your body, and restricted your own blood-flow. It would interfere with many processes and make you sick. Well, it's the same with a civilization.
"Huh?"
Come on, it's not like you don't know this. You already do. You know how it applies to smaller scales, like states and provinces. You know that, if you restricted flows between those units, by erecting borders between them, you'd degrade the quality of life in your country. You know this!
Well, it's the same with our planet. We already have a global society. A century ago, we didn't, and perhaps borders made sense then, since there was no planetary society yet for them to restrict the flow of. But we have one now. We live in a single, planet-wide civilization already.
And borders choke it. They choke it the same way they would choke your nation, if your nation set up borders in between its own states or provinces. It's the same thing. Borders are causing the chaos you see in the world.
We live in a planetary society, and it's time for a planetary consciousness to match it.
"Hey, wait, is this globalism? Globalism is tyranny! Globalism is the agenda of the elites! Nationalism, on the other hand, protects liberty, and nationalism is how we take our power back!"
That's what the elites want you to think!
The truth is actually just the opposite. Nationalism is the real tool of the elites.
You think you're being clever by being nationalist, but in reality, you're just playing right into their hands. Nationalism is what the elites want.
Because nationalism keeps the world divided. It keeps humanity fighting and arguing among ourselves. And if we're fighting each other, then we're not fighting them.
Only united can we defeat them. Only by transcending the artificial divisions of borders and nationality. Only by evolving, and awakening to a new identity as citizens of the Planet.
Planetary Consciousness is the elite's downfall, and they know it, and they fear it - so they fooled you into fearing it too, by inventing the term "globalist" and making it sound derogatory and scary. They planted disinfo in your favorite radio hosts and dot-connecting authors and lecturers, to make them think planetary consciousness was their (the elites') own goal, because they knew that that would make you want to oppose it and prevent its formation.
And that's what they want. They want you staying away from planetary consciousness - from unity. They want you identifying with your artificial partial chunk of the planet, called a "nation", instead of realizing your membership in the totality of the planet-wide community of Life.
Because divided, you're weak. Anything that divides people is good for the elite.
Nationalism divides.
Planetary Consciousness unites us.
"I agree, but right now, it doesn't seem like "planetary consciousness" - it just seems like elites are trying to create mass-immigration to certain countries."
That's a good point. There is more than one way to go about it. And the way it's been done thus far is the wrong way.
Currently, it's being imposed in a haphazard way, where some countries are being required to open their borders, while most other countries are not. This is not a fair system, and we have a better idea!
It must be done consciously, through worldwide treaty, representing the evolution of human consciousness on the planetary scale.
The Value of Liberty
Whether we're Lefties or Righties, we can all agree that Liberty is a virtue.
A society with more Liberty is preferable to one with less of it.
The ability to travel is a key component of Liberty. The more of the world that's open to you, the freer you are.
One of the common characteristics of tyranny is the restriction of travel. The more oppressive the government, the smaller the spaces the people are allowed to roam within.
Quintessential dictatorships forbade travel between states or provinces without permission...
...but today's system forbids travel between nations without permission.
On the left, a map of Russia. During Soviet Union times, you needed permission from the government to travel between sectors.
On the right a map of the world.
You need permission from the government to travel between sectors.
Are they really that different? It's only a matter of scale, isn't it? If Soviet citizens were living under tyranny... then so are we.
If you truly value Liberty, then you want to live in a world with easy, hassle-free travel.
To call ourselves free, and our society one of Liberty, we must have the ability to move freely across the planet, without fear of being waylaid.
Freedom of Movement
in Natural Law
It must be recognized, as public knowledge, that everyone has the right to travel and move about as they wish, as long as they are respecting others.
This right is actually true. It's part of Natural Law, specifically the principle of Benign Sovereignty. Everyone has the right to be sovereign, as long as they're benign - in other words, the right to do anything we want, as long as we're peaceful, and not violating the rights of anyone else.
The Right to Freedom of Movement is derived from Benign Sovereignty, and reads as follows:
The Right to Freedom Of Movement
To be anywhere on Earth,
at any time, for any amount of time
provided one is not violating anyone else's rights.
(see www.TheLawOfTheEarth.com/title-1-human-rights)
This is a fundamental, inalienable aspect of basic human rights, upon which no person, group, or government has any authority to infringe.
No one needs anyone else's permission to exist upon the land that Nature (or God, if you prefer) created.
That's just a plain fact. For more information on this, visit our page on Natural Law.
The Unreality of Borders
Furthermore, borders aren't even real - they're figments of the imagination. If you believe in running the world as if they were solid lines, then you're building your world on a foundation of something imaginary - something that only exists as long as people believe in it, and ceases existing when the belief ceases.
There's a border running through this meadow.
Can you spot it?
The border system is not based on anything real. You can't build a world like this, and expect it to be stable. Stability comes from having solid foundations. Imaginary things are the very definition of not solid - and borders are imaginary. This is like building a house on sand. It just can't work.
Borders just aren't real. They don't exist, except in our minds, and that is no foundation upon which to build a governing system.
you're making the assumption that keeping such people "over there" protects you. It doesn't. Our world is interconnected now. It's impossible to isolate anyone, or anything. They will "get you" one way or the other, if the will to do so is there.
"Are you saying we should have no borders at all? Just let anybody come into our country? What about criminals and terrorists?"
The Right to Freedom of Movement is contingent upon being peaceful. Sovereignty rests upon remaining benign. Criminals and terrorists are, by definition, not benign. So the right doesn't apply to them.
"How will you stop them, without borders?"
Borders and checkpoints can exist, but the things a traveler may be detained or denied entry for must be limited solely to those issues that could result in significant harm to the native population. And there are only four such things:
1. Contagious disease
2. Hazardous materials
3. Invasive species
It's perfectly reasonable to have borders to check for those things, and to restrict the movements of people who have those things. But it is not reasonable to restrict movement for merely not begging for permission in the expected way.
Here are things that may not be considered grounds for stopping someone's travel:
1. Failure or refusal to pay money
2. Being in a particular land for "too long" of a time
3. Suspected intentions of employment, or any other mutually consensual interpersonal relationship (which is also a right: The Right to Freedom of Relationship)
4. Failure or refusal to fill out "applications" or other paperwork
5. Herbs, herbal extracts, medicines, or any other personal affects (other than weapons and hazardous materials)
"I don't see terrorism on the first list. Can't borders also exist to stop terrorists? People with violent intentions?"
What are intentions? How do you prove an intention? Are you really going to take away someone's basic human rights (the Right to Freedom of Movement), on mere suspicion that they might be thinking something?
"What? So just let a suspected terrorist through?"
Through where? You're approaching this from the wrong angle. Apprehending violent criminals is not the function of border checkpoints - it's the function of the regular police.
Think about it. If someone is an actual criminal, a psychopath, would you be content to merely impede their ability to travel? Wouldn't you want them apprehended, and brought into actual custody, so they wouldn't be able to hurt anyone?
Especially with the interconnected world we have now, just because someone is in a faraway land, it no longer means they can't do damage to your world. Shouldn't we care about other lands? What happens in one part of the world affects all other parts. We live in an ecosystem, and our choices have global consequences; so if someone is a dangerous, violent maniac, wouldn't you want them stopped, regardless of what part of the world they live in?
If you think someone might be a terrorist, then don't just tell them to go someplace else - investigate them. Charge them with some actual crime, and if you have evidence, prosecute them, and hold a fair trial to ascertain the truth. And if proven, keep them in custody, so they can't continue to hurt others.
Border patrol is simply the wrong apparatus for this function. It's the wrong topic entirely. The wrong page. It has nothing to do with travel.
In fact, if someone's a terrorist, it's better that they come in to your country, because then you can actually apprehend them! You can't apprehend them if they're not within your jurisdiction! (Unless you want to invade other countries to get them, and then you're opening up a whole new Pandora's Box)...
So if someone's a terrorist, why would you be content to merely prohibit them from a certain section of land? Wouldn't you want to DEAL with the actual problem, and DO something about it?
Let them in, then prosecute them!
"But there's usually not enough evidence."
Then why aren't you letting them in?
"Because they're terrorists."
How do you know, if there's no evidence?
Again, you're talking about denying human rights on a mere SUSPICION.
It's one thing if you have actual proof that a person is a criminal. But it's quite another thing to abolish others' rights if you merely don't like them - because of your feelings.
"Rights? It's not a right to come here. This is my country, and we have laws."
Actually, you live in your country, but it's not your property. You don't own it. The land you live upon was made by the Creator, and the Creator did not write you, or anyone else, a title deed. Ever.
You're a resident here, just like anybody else, and you have a responsibility to respect others' rights, including the Right to Freedom of Movement.
"But that's not the law. If you don't like it, change it, but until then..."
Yes, it is the law. People do not make the law - the law is natural. It's a property of nature, not a whim of man.
"What are you talking about?"
Natural law is the true law, and all man-made legislation is false and invalid, because people do not have the authority to create law for other people. You aren't a god over your fellows.
For proof of this fact, visit our page Introduction to Natural Law.
"Fascinating stuff. Ok, so, where were we?"
If you think someone's a terrorist, the institution whose job it is to respond is not Border Patrol - it's regular law enforcement.
Apprehend the suspect, compile your evidence, file a charge, and then adjudicate the matter in a fair trial.
If you don't have evidence, then why are you bothering them? Let them be.
"But this is globalism!"
See our page on Globalism vs. Nationalism.
Here's one of the key differences between globalism and Planetary Consciousness:
In the globalist agenda, only some countries (i.e. Christian/white/"western") were required to open their borders. Other countries made no change at all, and didn't receive a peep of protest. The E.U., the U.N., Hollywood, the corporate media, never called for any other countries to have open borders. Muslim countries, for instance, were never called upon to open their borders to non-Muslim immigrants. Other ethnically and religiously homogeneous countries, like Japan and Korea, weren't bothered either. It was all uni-directional, because the goal wasn't freedom - the goals were all about geopolitical chess, and nothing more noble.
This is what the Righties are correct about.
But, Righties, we have to admit that there's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We can discard the globalist agenda, but still embrace Planetary Consciousness, and admit that worldwide, hassle-free travel is the birthright of everyone.
Objection 3:
"But open borders are an excuse for Islam to take over!"
While it's true that worldwide, hassle-free travel will enable people from Muslim-majority countries to enter and dwell in Christian-majority countries, the reverse is also true: Muslim countries will not be able to turn away non-Muslim visitors, nor prevent them from residing peacefully. There will be non-Muslim communities popping up in countries like Saudi Arabia, where they previously were not allowed.
So, while Islam will have greater access to the wider world outside the Middle East, it will also lose its monopoly on governance in the Middle East. While non-Islamic countries will indeed become a little bit more Islamic, Islamic countries will become a little bit less Islamic, and more cosmopolitan. So it will balance out in the end.
Objection 4:
"But immigrants will take all of our jobs!"
It's very ironic that this type of sentiment is usually expressed by people who profess a strong belief in the "free market."
If the principle of the free market is followed, then you don't own a monopoly on your field or job. If someone else can do a better job, for a more competitive wage, then, according to the free market, they should have the job.
Furthermore, there is such a thing as the Right to Freedom of Relationship:
The Right to Freedom Of Relationship
To relate with any person
in any mutually consensual way
in any place or setting, at any time
with or without the approval of anyone else.
(see www.TheLawOfTheEarth.com/title-1-human-rights)
No offense, but you are not a god over your fellows, and you do not have any authority to determine what kinds of relationships other people are allowed to have with each other. If someone wants to perform labor for another, and the latter wants to compensate the former, this is a mutually consensual relationship, which no one has the right to curtail.
Regulating who is and isn't allowed to work is not under the authority that you or anyone else possesses, as a human being.
But... there's a silver lining. While it's true that people from other countries will be able to compete in your country's job market, it's also true that you will be able to compete in theirs. Even if you, personally, don't feel like moving to Mexico for a job, your neighbor might, (maybe he really likes salsa dancing), and when he moves, his job will open up, and that's one more for you. So it will balance out in the end.
Objection 5:
"But immigrants use our social programs, and those programs cost money! I don't want to subsidize someone who's not even a citizen!"
There is no law (in Natural Law) that says that you have to give money and services to someone who isn't a citizen of your country.
In fact, the whole idea of these types of programs - and of socialism in general - is not part of the Earth Party's plan, ultimately. While socialism can be a useful band-aid to keep people alive and healthy, it is not a long-term solution, and the economic plan we envision does not involve socialism on anything more than a very temporary basis.
For more information on this topic, visit our page on Socialism vs. Capitalism.
Objection 6:
"But pristine land will be spoiled if people migrate in!"
The Earth Party takes ecology very seriously. There are already mechanisms in place to keep unspoiled land pure. The Law of the Earth contains very specific requirements for keeping land in the best possible condition.
To solve this problem, we need a healthier concept of Land Rights.
The problem here is that, in our current conception of Land Rights, it's basically binary. You either own the land (and can do whatever you want to ti), or you don't (and you can't do ANYTHING - not even walk upon it).
But the Law of the Earth sets forth a different understanding of Land Rights. Instead of being binary - 1 or 0 - "ownership" and "non-ownership" - there is a scale of specific rights, with each rights deriving from its own set of conditions.
The Land Rights are:
1. Presence
2. Foraging
3. Hunting
4. Stewardship
5. Agriculture
6. Territorialization
7. Construction
8. Extraction
The scale goes from the broadest to the narrowest.
For instance, just about everyone has the first right - Presence (unless they're either a violent criminal, or the land has been territorialized as someone's home). The other 7 rights come about through specific sets of conditions, and it's relevant to the immigration issue because someone can have the right to Presence without having the right to other, more intrusive things (like Agriculture or Construction).
Our current paradigm of land "ownership" does not allow for such distinctions, because it's binary. But with a more evolved understanding of Land Rights, this problem is easily solved.
Title 3 of The Law of the Earth explains each of the Land Rights in detail, and explains how to derive each one.
For more information, visit Title 3 of the Law of the Earth: www.TheLawOfTheEarth.com/title-3-ecology
Objection 7:
"But multiculturalism doesn't work!"
Yes it does, if done correctly.
Lefties, take heed! There is a correct way and a wrong way to do multiculturalism.
When you hear Righties saying "multiculturalism doesn't work", it's not because they're bigots. Well... sometimes it is. But often, there's a legitimate concern being voiced, and it has nothing to do with bigotry.
Humans are social animals. We need a sense of community. And if multiculturalism is being done in a way that undermines this, then it's producing consequences you need to become aware of.
If done correctly, multiculturalism enriches the human experience. But if done incorrectly, it creates societal fragmentation and alienation, because it takes away the shared sense of identity that a close-knit community would normally have.
If people whose culture is foreign to you are dwelling next-door to you, it may make life more interesting. But if everyone in your neighborhood is foreign - both from you and from each other - then it's very hard to find any collective identity to bind the community together. With no sense of community, individuals have trouble meeting their social needs for intimacy and belonging. The result is more lonely people, and more Prozac.
"What's the difference between the 'correct' way and the 'wrong way'?"
It's simpler than you think. It's just a matter of finding the correct scale.
The opposite of multiculturalism is segregation. And everyone practices segregation. Everyone. Including you, dear reader. You practice segregation at the scale of your own house or dwelling; you decide who gets to come in, and who doesn't.
The problem with segregation is when it occurs at the wrong scale.
Segregating at larger scales causes over-insulation and isolation - leading to the development of stereotypes, bubble-think, misunderstandings, and fear of the other culture.
At the same time, prohibiting segregation at small levels leads to the breakdown of culture, as there is no space for any culture to take root, and everything blends into an indistinguishable mass. A culture needs at least enough space to play its music without interference from other vibrations, and at least enough space to enjoy a setting of its own architecture.
For an idea of how this works, imagine two very different styles of music... like, for instance, the very quiet, peaceful Chinese guzheng... and the wild and stimulating Arabic bellydance. Imagine them playing in two adjacent rooms, with thin walls. The sound from each carries over into the next, and it creates a sound clash. It's two very different vibrations, and they don't mix.
You could have two adjacent rooms both playing guzheng - and you could have two adjacent rooms both playing bellydance - because the vibrations are similar enough, that even if they do carry through the walls, they won't negate each other. But you can't do it with two rooms playing wildly different styles. They will negate each other.
Let's use another example. Imagine a yummy plate of Mexican food. Mmmm... And now imagine a yummy plate of Thai food. Mmmm...
You might enjoy both types of cuisine. But you enjoy them on different nights. Or, at the very least, different plates. Not on the same plate.
Is this making sense?
Neither culture is better or worse than the other - they're of the same worth, but they just don't mix on the same plate or the same soundscape. They each need an appropriate amount of space to function.
"And how does this relate to entire cultures?"
Different cultures are perfectly capable of coexisting in the same land, but do need some degree of autonomy to keep themselves intact. A melting pot erases all individuality, but a salad bowl allows everyone to mix while still preserving the beauty of distinct cultures.
"So how do you achieve this 'salad bowl' thing?"
The root cause of the problem - the reason we can't solve it - is the fact that our society lacks natural, traditional social units. Our society doesn't even have the infrastructure to solve this problem.
There's only one way to solve it: Restore natural social units, and then practice multiculturalism at the appropriate scale.
In the emerging mature civilization, our society will be organized in 5 tiers:
1. Planet
2. Eco-Region
3. City
4. Township
5. Village
The smallest two - Township and Village - are the ancient social units that humanity grew up in. They're in our DNA. Their disappearance over the last century has led to so many ills. Restoring them is the key to solving so many of our social problems.
And here's how it works, on the issue of multiculturalism:
We can achieve the cultural salad bowl by eliminating segregation on the macro level (Townships and greater) while allowing it on the micro level (the Village).
In modern urban and suburban arrangements, a Village is just a block, so even with this degree of segregation, one may still encounter another culture simply by crossing the street.
The mistake that the Right has historically made, is that they try to apply segregation at too large of a scale. They've tried to make entire Townships - and in some extreme cases, entire countries (Eco-Regions) - one culture. That's just grotesque.
And the mistake the Left has made, is that they try to eliminate all segregation, even at the tiniest scales. They try to force every culture together into such a small space, that none of the cultures can keep their healthy boundaries or retain their identities.
But if we restore natural social units, and bring back the Village as the primary human social unit (like it was for 200,000 years, all the way up until capitalism deliberately erased it in the 20th century), then we can have the best of both worlds: Enough space for distinct cultures to thrive, and enough proximity for them all to interact and further the cause of peace, understanding, and cooperation.
"This sounds like a huge, risky social experiment."
Actually, this idea is natural to humanity. We've been living this way for tens of thousands of years. On the other hand, the way we're currently living - in haphazard, mish-mashed, urban and suburban landscapes - is the experiment. And it has clearly failed.
All we're proposing is to go back to the way things were done before.
A Living Example
There are several regions of the planet in which the salad-bowl multicultural arrangement is still intact, such as the Amazon, Papua New Guinea, and parts of Africa. We'll focus on one region here: Yunnan, in southeast Asia.
There are at least 26 ethnic groups living in the mountainous terrain of Yunnan. They include the Yi, Bai, Hani, Tai, Dai, Miao, Lisu, Hui, Lahu, Va, Nakhi, Mosuo, Yao, Tibetan, Jingpo, Blang, Pumi, Nu, Achang, Jinuo, Mongolian, Derung, Manchu, Sui, and Buyei.
These aren't just slight variations of one ethnicity - they're distinct cultures, each with their own language, their own dress, their own religious beliefs, and their own customs.
Amazingly (to us), they've each managed to keep their cultures intact, despite living in the same land. How do they get along? And how do they maintain their cultures distinctly? Why haven't they all blended into one indistinguishable mass?
It's because they still live in Villages. They've maintained the ancient human social unit.
You can come to one village - perhaps Nakhi - and then walk to the next village, which is Yi - and then to the next, which is Tibetan. Nearby are Lisu villages, Yao villages, Miao villages, and so forth. They do mix - at the level of the general geographic vicinity - but each village is one ethnicity. A range of hills will be heterogeneous, but each village is homogeneous.
Technically, this is called "self-segregation."
If a village tried to do this in America, or any "modern" country, its residents might be called "fascists" or "bigots." They might become the targets of lawsuits and relentless vilification by the media.
But do the people in these pictures look like racists?
Of course, they're not. They're just living how humans have lived forever - in a way that preserves distinct cultures, while allowing the option of mixing, for those who wish to do so. If you live in one of these villages, all of your neighbors would be of the same ethnicity and culture as you - but if you wanted to experience another culture, all you need is a short walk.
Most of Southern Asia is like this. In fact, most of the planet is like this - or was, before the advent of the "nation-state" model. The world didn't always have borders. And it doesn't need them.
Multiculturalism doesn't mean sacrificing one's own heritage. It doesn't mean you throw your traditions into a soup with everyone else's, diluting everything into an unrecognizable, uniform paste.
Yunnan proves that people can get along with other cultures while maintaining their own. They've been doing it forever.
Objection 8:
"I like the ideas on this page, but it's too utopian. It'll never happen. Even if my country decides to open its borders, and implement everything you wrote here, other countries won't. And the countries that keep their borders closed will be at an advantage over the utopian ones that open up. You'd have to get the entire world to agree to all of this, all at the same time."
You're right about that! The change - the evolution - will have to take place around the world simultaneously.
And that's exactly what our plan is. That's why planetary governance is an indispensable aspect.
When the Planetary Protectorate is established, it will make sure that the Law of the Earth is upheld, and everyone's Right to Freedom of Movement is respected - no matter where they are.
It can't be done by individual nation-states as separate units. You're right about that. But with planetary governance, it's possible.
For more details, see our page on:
Establishing the Planetary Protectorate.
bottom of page