Is it Christian for a Country to open the borders?

1/ On the Golden Rule: is it Christian for a Country to open the borders?

2/ Every morning the UK Parliament starts w/ prayers. The religiously-inspired nature of Parliamentary debates dates back to many centuries. There is, virtually, nothing new in modern moral dilemmas.

3/ Why do I mention the classics? Because UK Parliament used the “Homeric method” of debates that debased those who were not “honorable gentlemen”. You can’t do any political deliberation on Golden Rule w/ trolls. Let alone with payed trolls. (Persia used to pay trolls in Athens)

4/ Aristotle in his Rhetoric says “κυριωτάτην πίστιν έχει το ήθος” (first and foremost you should trust ethos/character). In Rhetoric it’s not the “facts”. Not just the “evidence”. But the character of your opponent has to be established BEFORE any deliberation.

5/ The ignorance, absurdity and ineptitude of American scholarship reached the point of reversing even the english definitions of latin terms. I typically use the “argumentum ad hominem” as an example, where the American Wikipedia defines the exact OPPOSITE of the french one.

6/ Ad hominem argument in French Wikipedia
Ad hominem = check for contradictions + practice what you preach

7/ Now compare with the english version.
Ad hominem: “a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character”.
Deliberately confusing ad hominem with ad personam.
An intellectual scam.

8/ With this simple introduction I’ll make my next point: Forget about the borders. How did the UK Parliament dealt with the French Revolution & execution of the French King?
Should the UK become a Republic? Those were hot issues back then.

9/ Parliamentary reports informed the public by dividing pro-French Revolution politicians in two categories: the BS vendors (radicals) who supported Liberal Revolution showing no character. And those who actually believed in the liberal cause. They took the latter seriously.

10/ In other words: ad hominem = #SITG
Now, should we open the borders? Christian solutions may come by a Bible-inspired politicians. And secular answers may appear by secular humanists. If both have SKIN IN THE GAME in no borders (= took risk e.g. opened their own houses).

11/ Example: Lincoln was inspired by Lord Byron. Byron was not a “liberal poet” because he wrote liberal poems but, mostly, because he sacrificed himself in the cause of Liberal Revolution in Greece against Turks. He had also adopted a 9-year-old Turkish Muslim girl (humanism).

12/ Golden Rule = (do vs. say) = (practicing vs. preaching)
We live in a globalised society and the notion of borders is going to change. Inevitably. Still, we can’t afford radical liberals dominating the debate.


On immigration

1/ What is worse? Low-educated Trump supporters being rigid thinkers or highly-educated idiots evoking science & technology, having no clue of what they’re talking about? It’s far from amazing. It’s tragic. And it’s not prejudice, it’s f***ing SURVIVAL.

2/ Scientific BS. There is NOT such a thing as “20% Mexican”. All humans have 99 % identical DNA. We’re all 99% Adolf Hitler. …. and 60% of this DNA is common with bananas. That’s only if we count for DNA. If we root down to bio elements, we’re all 100% bananas.

3/ Imagine in your test results: “your DNA shows you’re 99% Adolf Hitler”. It’s as ridiculous as it gets. But somehow saying “you’re 20% Mexican” pass the scientific standards. DNA fragment polymorphisms give a picture about population movements, but not about identity.

4/ Today, with rich supply of food, it’s all liberal rainbows and funny commercials. During a SERIOUS DEATH-THREATENING FOOD SHORTAGE nonintegrated immigrants will do what their CULTURE OF ORIGIN dictates them to do: tribes + tribe masters + primitive law (e.g. Mex. Cartels).

5 / The “personnalité des lois” is a legal term, a PREDICTABLE RESULT of UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION. It’s how we had “islands of barbaric law” within the Roman law right before the fall of Rome. 2018; The Telegraph: British court recognises sharia law in landmark divorce case.

Another interesting case is North vs. South Korea: Same race. Same language. Radically different culture. Is it humanitarian for S. Korea to open the borders WITHOUT control for social integration?