Just because a state doesn’t enforce boundaries does not mean they won’t exist. This is the notion that normally percolates in my mind while suffering the talking-noise of some open borders autist. The human condition is not a blank slate and, despite the platitudes of present fashion, it does not yearn to “bring people together.” This being so obvious that its acknowledgement represents an extreme breach of etiquette.
Though the proof is available for review. Anywhere the government boot heel is lifted off a people’s neck they (often quickly, always eventually) segregate into homogenous and vigorously defended habitats. As has been quipped a million times: diversity is so desirable it requires gunpoint implementation.
Given that human nature holistically is something much less malleable than the mind of a white college student, I think certain forecasts are fairly viable. One of those being the likely successor to a scenario of dissolved Western nation-states. It won’t be a frictionless liberaltopia of brownish-yellow consumer units, I can assure you. Though we’ll return to that shortly. For sake of foreshadowing, I think the “right side of history” may make a jarring U-turn to the past.
There are few more fundamental human needs than the one to carve out some radius of security. Not just physical security, but psychic. A place where fathers can daydream about neighbor’s wives as their children play, rather than having to maintain a constant worried vigil. A place where they can interact at-ease among like peers, without the spiritual gangrene of ‘ism avoidance and maladaptive liberal conformity. There was a time in living memory when they could.
In pre “””Great Society””” America, a poor white family could still afford a safe, peaceful, and homogenous living space. As these were the amenities of their national birthright. Ones enforced by community standards and vigorously defended borders. Though 1964 ended the right to choose our associations domestically, while ’65 extended the restriction to the the world. And so we began the fitful process of turning our country into a petri-dish.
A rarely remarked upon corollary of this transformation is in the debasement of that national birthright. If everyone is an American, then no one benefits from it. Just as if everyone wins the lottery, no one gets any money. Applying a term to all who claim it extracts its meaning entirely. And so people seek meaning elsewhere. Do you imagine Zuckerberg is amenable to living without boundaries in his own space?
Thus what follows the modern nation-state is very likely to be the pre-modern city-state. What national borders failed to achieve, municipalities will enforce. Not necessarily with machine guns at the city limits–at least not initially–but with the only currency still accepted: currency. As national birthrights continue to disintegrate, peace and security will increasingly become options available for purchase only. Most morbidly obtuse shitlibs imagine they will have access to the more desirable of these locales by virtue of their virtue. Only if virtue pays very well indeed.
Vancouver and San Francisco both offer fascinating glimpses into the early stage of this evolution. With many black interior rust-belt cities offering equal examples of what will be the more affordable models. But as we are discriminating consumers, let’s focus on the aspirational brands.
According to this article, the average sales price of a house in Vancouver last month was a bracing $1.8 million. Whether that is quoted in American or Canadian money is irrelevant to the economic border being erected there. If you’re more of a visual person, perhaps this graphic will depict the situation.
And what sort of demographics might such an affluent polity feature? Reportedly these are the figures as of 2011:
Central/South American: 1%
Well that certainly appears to be a more effective border than the one at Laredo. Very strange. For comparison, what might be found a little way down the coast? Here’s a piece on San Francisco real estate from 18 months ago:
The median price paid in June for a new or existing single-family home or condo in San Francisco hit $1 million for the first time, according to a report released Wednesday by DataQuick.
“It’s really hard to buy if you don’t have cash or 50 percent down and make an offer that is non-contingent,” says Doricko. She’s had buyers who made the highest offer lose out because the seller asked cash buyers to come up to that price. “And they do,” she says.
Look I’m certain a purple-haired barista with a pleasantly piquant tumblr page could surely entice sellers down a few hundred grand. Otherwise is she just supposed to live in Stockton or something? Let’s see what San Fran’s demographics reveal.
Non-hispanic white: 42%
Southern Border overflow: 15%
White and asian again. I wonder if some pattern will emerge? Regardless, my forecast is for very few seven-figure black and mestizo home buyers in the city’s future. And a resulting racial profile that increasingly comes to resemble its northern neighbor. Though what for those whose liberalism is more robust than their bank account? Well that’s what places like Gary, Indiana are for. Would you care to guess its demographics?
Of course maintaining coveted market positions will require sound leadership from future city-states. That means liberals like Bloomberg who get the joke, rather than ones like De Blasio who do not. The joke, of course, being to have your liberalism and not get eaten by it too. And that means drawing rigid economic borders, employing an enthusiastic well-paid constabulary, and screaming racist at the whites so gauche as to not even have the good taste to live in Pacific Heights.
Ultimately all men interested in family formation seek a secure and stable environment. Some do so by checkbook and others, eventually, by means far less genteel. And from hills overlooking the azure Pacific, one can always be certain which group is most noble.