Taken from my blog:
Long before Christopher Columbus “discovered” America in 1492, there was a Viking settlement in what is now as Nova Scotia called “Vinland”, named after the great amounts of grapes said to grow there by the Norsemen who discovered it. The Norsemen had come to this strange new world for the same reason many later European colonists would - to wrest control of the abundant natural resources of the region from the native inhabitants of the area, whom they called “skraelings”. Try as they might, however, the warlike Vikings simply could not dominate the “skraelings” (known today as the Dorset), and thus were forced to flee the area and the entire continent within a few years of establishing their first colony in Vinland.
To my mind, this interesting historical curiosity neatly parallels the current controversy over illegal immigration. Both the Norsemen and those we currently deride as “illegal immigrants” braved dangerous voyages to a strange new land in search of prosperity - for this, I can do nothing but admire them. Certainly, the quest for self-improvement brought the immigrants into conflict with the native settlers of the region, and yet, there is no need for it.
We, Europeans, are all illegal immigrants. We took, through treachery, trickery, and the gun, every inch of land we now know as the United States from the Native Americans - and yet even they are not “native settlers” of anything; in truth, we are all immigrants, having immigrated out of Africa in search of new lands to tame misty aeons ago. We are native to nothing; man is a wanderer by his very psychological makeup, constantly struggling with himself, others, and nature in an attempt to refine and hone himself. As I’ve said, life is change - he who does not change does not grow, and he who does not grow stagnates. This is as applicable to such human constructs as a “nation” as it is to the individual man.
Thus, I ask the nationalist to reconsider his position on the current situation. Are you not yourself an immigrant or a decendant of immigrants? Do you not believe that, through the act of immigration, our nation has not been anything if not improved? Indeed, without immigration, even illegal immigration, our nation would not exist. Is it worth it to keep out the masses of unwanted, unwashed sheep at the expense of the few lone goats to whom all progress is owed? Do not kid yourself - most people of every social group are worms, fit only to wallow in their own wastes. However, in every group, in every nation and race and rung on the social heirarchy, there are always a select group of people with the power to pull themselves above the herd, and by this act gain the strength to pull their fellow men up with them.
I am forced to question the concept of nationalism as well - in truth, there is little I am more opposed to. Patriotism has been the source of more death in the twentieth century than any other human reason for killing his fellow man. The State is an arbitrary creation formed by the herd for its own benefit. The notion of politic itself is but an extension of this - an excuse for the weak to strive for stability and stagnation, for they fear all change. Please understand that I am not an anarchist - anarchy, by its very nature, is unstable; because most people are weak, the anarchist “state” will either quickly degenerate into complete Social Darwinism or will coalesce once more into a herd-dominated state. I am apolitical, as was Nietzsche before me - my focus is upon the individual struggling to overcome his fellow man by overcoming himself, regardless of the political situation of the nation he resides in. The truly strong will resist the shallow impulses of power and patriotism and religion - of stagnation - which the weak thrive upon. The only State I could endorse would be that which not only is fearless in the face of change, but is designed in such a way to allow for all types of changes necessary to the survival of the individuals which compose it - sadly, such a State is merely a pipe dream. Democracy is far from what I dream of; though it allows freedom for the masses, they inevitably vote the platform of stagnation each and every time. Every party, at its core, is composed of one doctrine - that of, again, stagnation.
But I fear I digress, and should finish it up. In closing, let it be known that immigration is not to be feared by the truly strong - not only is it admirable to brave the unknown in search of betterment for the self and those loved by the self, but the change brought by such immigration is absolutely essential for the continued longevity of any people. I only wish others would reach the same conclusion.
