World Without Nations and Borders- A Dialogue

It is obvious that I am for a borderless world, but I have always avoided using that term. I go for "removal of borders as barriers of movement," #Free2RoamTheWorldWeAreBornIn,  "abolish visas," #EndBirthplaceRacism and #EndGlobalApartheid #EndInjusticeAtBirth
Because to me, borders are not the main problem and “open borders” does not represent the heart of the problem. But as everyone uses these terms and there are hashtag pages, I decided to use #OpenBorders and #WorldWithoutBorders. Nobody in favor turned up. But I got an attack. SaxonShieldWall quoted some biblical text. “#WorldWithoutBorders and #WorldWithoutNations You mean like in the plot from Deuteronomy 7:16-24 and 32:28-35?”
    I didn't have a clue what he was talking about. Instead of asking him, I got into the internet and searched. I still didn't get what those verses were supposed to mean. But I was sure what I was talking about had nothing to do what he meant.
    “Not at all!” I said. “Borders and nations formed by consent is just fine. But being born into a nation is not. I agree there has to be boundaries. I respect borders, just not artificial ones.”

 So we started an exchange with this SaxonShieldWall:

“If you neighbour moved the fence 3 feet further into your garden would you mind? Or took it down so he could use your land? Removing boundaries creates problems. Respecting other countries and peoples right to their own space would reduce them,” he said.
    “Peoples right to their own space should be respected. But countries are NOT homes of nations. People are a concrete entity. We exist physically, we are not just defined like countries. Sovereignty is for people, not governments. I mean that's how it should be, I know it's the other way around now,” I replied.
    “Problem here is you don't respect national self identity & seek to have it destroyed. Ultimately through violent means. Not nice,” he said.
    “No, I don't have national self-identity, if that's a problem, it's your problem. &Who says through violent means? Where did you get that? Governments are the ones employing violence on people because they were born somewhere outside the imaginary line they drew.”
    “Governments are employing violence inside and out because they need to destabalise the world to get rid of nations.”
    "And who says through violent means? Where did you get that?" I repeated.
    “What do you think happens in a societal collapse and revolution?”
    “There doesn't have to be societal collapse or revolution. Things might change by seeds and enlightenment of the next generation.”
    He mocked me asking “What is this enlightenment? The dawn of reality? Or another dangerous fantasy cobbled onto the end of the last one? You are helping get millions of people killed. That is the fact of it,”
    “It is seeing things clearly, the way they are. The injustice and ridiculousness. And mind your words! What is 'dangerous fantasy cobbled onto the end of the last one?' Keep your judgements to yourself please,” I retorted.
    Instead, I should have said “Oh the irony!” As this person, who obviously had one fantasy cobbled onto another was accusing me of such a thing.
    “Yes yes, it is a FACT that I am helping get millions killed. Woow! I didn't know how monstrous I was! Thanks for warning me,” I went on.
    He sent me a link for me to read... Riversofblood.uk He claimed “If you read that you might understand how your position can be exploited by others with very different ideas.”
    “I don't care about others with very different ideas. I have my own ideas and stand by them. Everything is exploited anyway,” I said.
    I had asked who his people were and he had not answered. So I repeated my question again:
    “By the way did you tell me who YOUR people are? Why those born within the same imaginary line as you?”
    “The Saxons:-)”
    “And you love every single one of your Saxons?? You don't have any problems with them? You never travelled or met anyone else you liked? And where do you recognize your people, these Saxons, from? They have beaks? They have protruding ears? They smile nicer?”
    “Don't be silly:-)”
    “Don't be silly about what? Then what's the problem with other people? I prefer other people over my family I was born into.”
    
SaxonShieldWall sent me the same link again and said  “Can I refer you back to this because I know you didn't read it:-)”
    “Yes yes you KNOW I didn't. That was such an enlightening piece but maybe I didn't get it. Did you read anything I wrote?” I asked. “See? I ask, I am not a seer like you who claims to know what other people are doing and stating Facts which are not Facts!”
    “I'm sorry reality is not what you want it to be.”
    “Ah! So your reality is the REAL one? Just like the Fact I'm helping millions die? I see... That's a fact and one & only reality. &You know this reality just like you knew I didn't read the piece you sent? I see... Problem is I'm not a seer like you, sorry for my incapacity :(“
    “So your not a seer and you want to impose a radically different future on the world with no idea as to how it will pan out?”
    “What makes you think I want to impose anything on anybody? And you think this political world is panning out so nicely? Yeah, I'd rather try another one, a just one & give it a try rather than go along with what we have.”
    “? so you're not after a #WorldWithoutBorders? Panning out nicely? Apparently my country and people don't have a right to exist!”
    “The way it is, yes I am. Borders can only be drawn where groups are formed by consent not by birth within a certain region. Where's it apparent from that your country and people have no right to exist?? Please answer my questions if you want to continue the conversation.”
    “So in the end it will have to come to killing? Which you always knew anyway because that is how it has always ended.”
    “?? Why does it have to come to killing? Plus, it cannot come to killing as we are already killing, we have to leave killing first,” I said. That was a ridiculous argument.

At which point SSW said something that made me laugh out loud so much!
    “You are Jewish aren't you?”
    “That was nice,” I typed in the computer after I was done laughing. “Your mind cannot conceive anything different, right? And I was wondering if you were 18 or 60? :)”
    Even though I didn't feel his presumptuous question deserved an answer, I wanted him to understand how wrong he was. “Well, you make so many assumptions &until now, all of them have been wrong :)” I said. But that had ignited a sympathy in me. I realized he had fears and wrong notions, he was living in this scary world he made up, or others made up and he believed.
    “Even though you seem like you are so in opposition to my ideas, I've grown a strange liking to you you know?” I said.
    “You can like people and still fight on different sides in a war. It's a very weak bond unlike group survival as you know:-)”
    “I do not know. I do not have a concept of group. &I don't think I'll fight a war against people I like. I don't think I'll fight a war against people, I fight against ideas.”
    “But your ideas threaten world stability and people's very existence.”
    “That's what YOU think. I wouldn't have hold such ideas if I thought it was so. Why do YOU feel so threatened?”
    “This is mental torture for a start,” he answered.
    “What's the mental torture? And what's the continuation if that's the start? :)” I asked.
    He didn't answer these questions. I had gone on with other questions:
    “Another question.. Who would you save in case of danger? One of your people that you don't like or one outside your group that you like? I might be saving you instead of my father for example. Is that bad? Is it strange? How can you identify with a group you didn't choose?”
    “A Marxist & an Arab nationalist in burning building. Save Arab Nationalist... More in common. Marxist wants to destroy us both.”
    At which I gave another hearty laugh.
    “:)) You are funny... You know that, right?”
    “Thanks:-) But nationalism is about respect not hate. Destroying borders, races and nations is disrespectful & an act of hatred. Actually you do have to laugh but according to British law a hate crime is whatever the "victim" perceives it to be. Subversion is where you want something that doesn't happen and create the conditions that make it happen.”
    “Destroying what borders is disrespectful & an act of hatred? If you destroy my border with the world, the walls of my house, yes it is. If you are talking about destroying the imaginary lines drawn by a literally bloody war or by metaphorically bloody politics, no, it is not,” I said and went on. “As for destroying race... What's hate got to do with it? Even if there is such a thing as race, Intermarriage is destroying it, it's only people's choice and has to be respected. As for destroying nations... I don't know if you mean as race or nation-states. But both are disappearing anyway in the globalized world, and again, I don't think there's anything you can do about it. It has nothing to do with disrespect & hatred, it's a natural process.”
    “The only way to create racial problems where they don't exist is by exploiting immigrants & using them to play divide and conquer. It is the most subversive and unnatural thing in the world.”
    “Good point. So don't fall into their trap!”
    “Which trap? Blaming the immigrants? Or imagining this is a normal natural process?”
    “Divide & rule trap. What's not natural about a Turkish marrying a Kurdish? Or a French a Zimbabwean? Anything against nature for them to have sex or children? Anything that prohibits their having sex or having children?” I asked. “Races and nations you claim are being destroyed are destroyed because of inter-marriages not by movement of people!”
    “What's natural about bringing people here from thousands of miles away and brainwashing everyone into thinking its normal?”
    “What bringing people? What's unnatural about one who is bombed or simply unsatisfied with life moving around to find a better life? What's natural about drawing imaginary lines grouping people who DID NOT CHOOSE to be together and putting guns & walls at those lines?
    Of course there is no answer to that question. So SSW did what people who feel trapped in a corner do.
    “This is too stupid. You will lose. The end.”
    “What's too stupid, what will I lose?” I asked and said. “I believe you've already lost as you put an End because you couldn't answer my questions.”
    And I thanked him for the discussion. Even though I'm sure that was not his intention he had made me refine my arguments and made my belief in it stronger.
    “Okay then read this. Then let me know if you think I've lost the argument,” he said sending the same link to me for the third time. Rivers of Blood!
    “I've read it,” I said. “If you wish, be it, you win. I'm not after winning.”
    “If you'd read it you wouldn't be at me here trying to defend your position. Especially as all you have is pure drivel.”
    “I don't go for insults. Look in the mirror for drivel. Have a nice day and life...”

End of conversation.