Somehow nationality is the final frontier

Friday, November 1st, 2019

Zach Weinersmith‘s Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic doesn’t normally cover political topics, but his new Open Borders graphic novel — which is certainly graphic, but doesn’t appear to be a novel — with Bryan Caplan has just come out, and it does deal with a contentious topic.

“Thanks to the power of Zach Weinersmith, it’s fun to read for all ages.”

SMBC Open Borders Concerns

They discuss the book here:


  1. Bruce says:

    What if creating lower wages through higher immigration to change America from a high-wage, first world country to a low-wage, second world country has been the great bipartisan achievement of the last fifty years?

  2. Kirk says:

    Basically, traitors.

  3. Albion says:

    Do the people who imagine a world without borders ever step outside their front door and travel to areas where there is a lot of non-natives to see what is happening? Or do they sit at home and imagine it will be a world where everyone loves each other, etc, simply because they really like the idea of everyone loving everyone else?

    I have seen enough in the UK to tell me that open borders might not be the best idea ever — and we are an island with what should be a natural moat. If the UK crumbles because of the in-pouring of low IQ benefit-seekers who rely on the natives to work and pay the taxes to support the non-workers, I shudder to think what happens to nations with a porous land borders.

  4. McChuck says:

    SMBC espouses all sorts of sexual perversions. And of course he’s a Jew. What should we expect from this guy, but more America hating propaganda?

  5. Alistair says:

    There are many lawless parts of the world with open borders. Anyone can get into places like Mali, Afghanistan, and Eastern Syria.

    They are all economic powerhouses.

  6. Alistair says:


    I really don’t think these people “get” national group loyalty, or indeed any loyalty, at any level. It’s almost like a psychological gap; all fealty is transactional and conditional for them. The nation state is just a bizarre anachronism for them that gets in the way of their international cosmopolitan lifestyles. Of course, they still expect it to protect THEM.

    I’ve got family who are that way and it’s just damn disconcerting.

  7. Harry Jones says:

    I don’t “get” most notions of loyalty, and I’m no internationalist – just a jaded cynic. All fealty I have ever encountered in my life turned out to be transactional and conditional in the end. To be unconditionally loyal is for suckers.

    Strong identification with a group is for people who are poorly individuated. Herd is as herd does.

    Internationalism is just nationalism on a planetary scale. Hence the phrase “citizen of the world.” It is also, in practice, a class identity: the jet set. The furthest possible you can get from that is “to thine own self be true.”

  8. Bill says:

    It’s the “feelings” people versus the “numbers” (also called the “rational”) people.

    If one destitute, unskilled single mother refugee with two tiny tots shows up at the border, what’s the decent thing to do? What if 10,000,000 destitute, unskilled people show up at the border?

    The rational people see these cases as different. The feelings people can’t visualize it, because they only see their feelings.

    The media feeds the hysteria of the feelings people, as their masters demand. Nations are plundered, civilizations are lost. All according to plan, so far.

  9. Wang Wei Lin says:

    Every open borders liberal locks their doors and windows telling me they are liars and hypocrites. When I mention this to them it pisses them off which is fine by me.

  10. Szopen says:

    Open borders means you can show up in one location advocating for some policy and then leave when this policy backfires spectacularly, to advocate the same policy in some new location, without ever suffering the bad effects of that policy. Plus it encourages people to leave instead to stay and try to address the problems.

    Not to mention, of course, that open borders would destroy national cultures, languages and nations themselves, which would be democide.

  11. CVLR says:

    “And of course he’s a Jew.”

    And what does that have to do with anything, bigot?

    America isn’t a bloodline, it’s a state of mind.

  12. CVLR says:

    Harry Jones, also true. The top class is always the most far-flung. Aspire to cosmopolitanism if you can; get an Israeli passport if you must.

  13. Harry Jones says:

    On that video… video reveals tone in a way that text can obscure it, but I think their smugness would come through in any form. I have no interest in any rebuttal that is dismissive of facts in favor of theoretical arguments. They are too in love with their own ideas, and love is blind.

    There can be no dialogue with people like this. They simply don’t perceive our world, and we don’t live in theirs. No common ground.

  14. Graham says:

    Well, I can certainly better understand and identify with Harry Jones perspective of Nov 2 at 1023, than I can with Caplan and Weinersmith, or for that matter that NYT guy who had some sort of meltdown a while back and columnized that America might kick out the failed second and third generations of once successful migrants, to keep the churn going.

    Harry Jones- Thanks for that- I appreciated this concise summation of some points you’ve made in the past. I am not unsympathetic.

    My country approaches this sort of thing from a more purely progressive angle, and our libertarian tendencies are few, especially if one means self-identified libertarianism drawing on any of the 20th century American tradition. But we have trod some similar paths.

    The thing I suspect, still, is that libertarianism in one country is its only hope. It has too little appeal across ethnic and cultural boundaries even within the US, and has had ample time to sell itself. It seems to appeal to a small, rich/lucky/gifted/talented/egotist [or all 5] subset of NW European Americans, a comparably defined subset of Eastern European Ashkenazi Americans, and similarly defined ever tinier subsets of other groups. I doubt it will change.

    So what will actually happen is that open borders will increase the social democracy quotient of the US inexorably, proving libertarianism to be a philosophy of suicide in the strict sense. Not necessarily for America, just itself.

    There’s a constituency for open borders, and for elite globalization, but none for libertarian politics on a global scale.

  15. Sam J. says:

    CVLR says,”…“And of course he’s a Jew.”

    And what does that have to do with anything, bigot?…”

    What you are doing is injecting lying propaganda. What Jews have to do with mass immigration is without them it would not be happening. The Jews have spent vast amounts of money, time and propaganda to dilute the numbers of White Europeans in the US and now in Europe. They are responsible for whatever failures of “multiculturalism” occur. It falls on them. Every White persons blood murdered by an illegal alien or a immigrant is on their hands. They did it.

    So far Jews have been able to call people names,”bigot”, and get them to not see how the Jews are destroying their country just like every country they’ve ever gone too because of their sick psychopathy but as the US becomes less White and more savages move in this will be less so. Only Whites care about not being bigots. Al the other races you are packing in White countries could care less. In the past Jews have been able to move from place to place when they’ve parasited the country to such an extent that the people rebel but they have no where to go. Their hatred is got them in a fix and their “move to China” plan is in tatters as the Chinese are not having any of this shit where the Jews call them names and destroy their country.

    “…America isn’t a bloodline, it’s a state of mind.,,”

    Another big flat out lie spread by the Jews.

    Tactically the Jews are geniuses at shaping public opinion but strategically they the dumbest fucks on the planet. You’ve cheated, lied to and destroyed just about every nation on earth. I don’t think it will end well for the Jews and whatever happens to them couldn’t happen to a better people.

  16. Sam J. says:

    Harry Jones says,”…I don’t “get” most notions of loyalty…Internationalism is just nationalism on a planetary scale…”

    Then you should do as you profess and move to Brazil. Brazil is what most places would look like with everyone immigrating wherever, whenever they want. Don’t be a hypocrite and sponge off the Nationalist that do understand having a nation State and move. No one is stopping you. Same for all the Jews. Move to Israel. I’m the biggest Zionist around all Jews should move to Israel.

    You who proclaim that you want or are in favor of multiculturalism should try it out on yourselves first see how it suits you. Leave the rest of us out of it.

  17. Graham says:

    I had assumed CVLR’s comment was at least partly tongue in cheek.

  18. Graham says:

    I recently became aware of yet another late night comedian, transplanted Australian Jim Jefferies. Naturally, I can’t imagine I’d care for his schtick.

    One of the ads I keep seeing has him interviewing some [in the ad, unseen] party and asking, “what right does anyone have to tell someone where they can live?”

    Indeed. The ability to conceive of that question is a key dividing line here, and I don’t think it’s just opposition to zoning or anti-squatting laws.

  19. Gaikokumaniakku says:

    The Warburg brothers started wars, profited from supporting both sides of those wars, and then arranged the looting of countries afterwards. Of course they were only loyal to each other because of ethnic ties. I would expound at length, but I am a guest here. Maybe a long article deserves posting at “Vulture of Critique.”

    What does their ethnicity have to do with anything, “bigot”? Ethnic discrimination and ethnic chauvinism are relevant to geopolitics when they are weaponized in geopolitical conflicts.

    Not all Jews seek to weaponize their Jewish connections. (Ron Unz, Israel Shahak, Benjamin Freedman, Alan Sabrosky, etc.) But the Jews who successfully weaponize the Jewish connections are so destructive that no one can afford to ignore the specifically Jewish nature of their tactics.

    But if you want to read a good criticism of the Jews, read Ron Unz or any other Jew who has criticized Jewish culture from the inside.

    As Shahak himself wrote: ” It became apparent to me, as drawing on knowledge acquired in my youth, I began to study the Talmudic laws governing the relations between Jews and non-Jews, that neither Zionism, including its seemingly secular part, nor Israeli politics since the inception of the State of Israel, nor particularly the policies of the Jewish supporters of Israel in the diaspora, could be understood unless the deeper influence of those laws, and the worldview which they both create and express is taken into account.”

    Thus the Jewishness of a wrongdoer is relevant when it exposes that deeper influence.

  20. Gaikokumaniakku says:

    The original Founders of the USA stipulated that only a “white” person could be a citizen. However, judging from George Washington’s courteous remarks to the synagogues of his day, they believed Jews to be “white.”

    So the original America was meant to be a racially harmonious community of “white” people, including Jews. The problem is that the notion of “white” is too simplistic: it abstracts away important complexities.

  21. Sam J. says:

    Graham says,”I had assumed CVLR’s comment was at least partly tongue in cheek.”

    If so my apologies to CVLR.

    I wondered that myself but I’m so completely fed up with Jew propaganda, I’ve had it with them, that I tend to counter most of what they say when they start spouting that stuff. It’s just lie after lie after lie.

    9-11 was the dividing line for me. They did this. That combined with the severe corruption brought about by the Jews prostituting children to blackmail all our politicians…I’ve just fucking had it with them. They are also major responsible for the outsourcing of industry out of the US to China due to take overs (financialization) during the 80′s and on. The wholesale importation of people in no way compatible with our country or values leaves us with a massive long term serious constant strife that will only get worse. The damage done to out country is ghastly. It’s close to terminal. Maybe not yet but very close and that’s the optimistic version. They turn everything that they touch to shit due to greed and a serious case of POZZ of the brain.

    I’m not saying all Jews are psychopaths but if a bunch of Jews move to your territory there is no distinguishable difference between what they do and a tribe of psychopaths moving into your territory. No one can stand psychopaths for long and eventually the Jews get kicked out. There’s just no reasoning with Jews or psychopaths. The only 100% proven, every time, way to deal with them is to get them the fuck away from you and out of your life, territory, culture, etc.

    There’s no way you can live with a people whose religion is that everyone should be their slave and they should own everything on the planet.

  22. CVLR says:

    Sam, I have tremendous respect for the Jews.

    Tremendous love and respect.

    It’s an undeniable fact: without the Jews, a tremendous piece of core Americana simply wouldn’t exist:

    For some twenty-five or thirty years — between the mid-1950s and the early 1980s — a single explosive development in our literature made the experience of being Jewish-in-America a metaphor that attracted major talents, changed the language, and galvanized imaginative writing throughout a Western world badly in need of a charge. Its two pathbreaking stars — one at the start, the other at the end — were Saul Bellow and Philip Roth, a pair of writers who strong-armed the culture into accommodating the experience. Not another writer after Roth could lay claim to the metaphor with the demanding savvy that he and Bellow had brought to the enterprise.

    In its glory days, Jewish-American writing was an indicator of a cultural shift that a couple of million Americans had thought they’d never live to see: a shift that ushered in a final phase of assimilation for Jews at levels of American life previously unavailable to them (very much like the shift that has occurred over the past few decades for blacks, women, and gays). This shift was welcomed half a century ago with a violent rush of words that announced the arrival of a narrating voice whose signature traits were a compulsive brilliance, an exuberant nastiness, and a take-no-prisoners humour edged in self-laceration. These traits never deserted the work of those years; rather, they were integral to the entire undertaking.

    An angry fever inhabited these writers of the 1950s and 1960s, one that burned with a strength that routinely threatened either to purge or to consume the body upon which it fed. Conventional English could not address the condition. It required a syntax and a sentence structure that could fan the fever, spread the infection, stimulate a nervous system clearly in distress. The American language was ready to accommodate. Virginia Woolf had once complained that she couldn’t find the words to make an English sentence that would describe what illness felt like to her, because as an Englishwoman she was constrained from taking liberties with the language. This is exactly what outsider literature does in this country: fashions the language anew, precisely so that it can express what it feels like to be ill. That, essentially, is what Jewish-American writing at its best has done. In my view, it would never be about anything else. In the hands of a Saul Bellow or a Philip Roth, such expressiveness could — did — set off a literary charge of epic power.

    So we are deeply indebted to them for their service to Western civilization. Think of what it would be like to live in a world without such literary brilliance:

    While everybody else has been marrying nice Jewish girls, and having children… what he has been doing is — chasing cunt. And shikse cunt, to boot! Chasing it, sniffing it, lapping it, shtupping it, but above all, thinking about it…. It seems to make no difference how much the poor bastard actually gets, for he is dreaming about tomorrow’s pussy even while pumping away at today’s!

    What I’m saying, Doctor, is that I don’t seem to stick my dick up these girls, as much as I stick it up their backgrounds — as though through fucking I will discover America. Conquer America — maybe that’s more like it…. I want what’s coming to me. My G.I. bill — real American ass! The cunt in country-’tis-of-thee! I pledge allegiance to the twat of the United States of America — and to the republic for which it stands: Davenport, Iowa! Dayton, Ohio! Schenectady, New York, and neighboring Troy!

    Imagine a world without Jews.

  23. CVLR says:

    Ron Unz is one of my favorite living humans.

  24. CVLR says:

    Gaikokumaniakku: “The problem is that the notion of “white” is too simplistic: it abstracts away important complexities.”


    “The Warburg brothers started wars, profited from supporting both sides of those wars, and then arranged the looting of countries afterwards. Of course they were only loyal to each other because of ethnic ties. I would expound at length, but I am a guest here. Maybe a long article deserves posting at “Vulture of Critique.””

    You blame Warburg, who floated across the Atlantean ocean and established his central bank in America, but no one remembers Aschberg or Schiff.

  25. CVLR says:

    MacDonald is a hack. Every human group pursues a “group evolutionary strategy”.

  26. CVLR says:

    After reading the article all I can think is:

    1. Problem: petty street crime

    2. Reaction: “this has to end”

    3. Solution: a cloud-connected camera every 100 yards

    “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”
    — FDR

  27. Graham says:


    You remind me of when I discovered, probably only as a late teen ( I was never all that culturally up to date) that there is a deep, wholly understandable link between gay male identity and “camp” as a mode in the arts and pop culture.

    This left me torn, since I believed and still believe that I have no particular prejudices against gay men as such, but have hated “camp” since childhood, and well before I knew what “gay” meant.

    So when somebody offers a defence of gay men in aggregate, which I see no need for, using “Camp”, which I hate, as part of their argument, they have done a very counterproductive thing.

    It basically amounts to, when I saw reruns of the Batman series from the 60s, my reaction was WTF was that? I know camp was pretty much the defining style of the 60s, but still.

    Of course, in the right critical theorist hands, even movies and shows that were played straight can be redefined as camp, so one can’t win.

  28. Graham says:

    Alas, on the main subject, I now find myself looking and thinking a couple more times when I evaluate all sorts of American popular culture of the last 50 or more years.

Leave a Reply