National borders correspond to healthy psychological boundaries, but instead of them being the psychological boundaries of an individual person, they are the psychological boundaries of a collective nation. Healthy boundaries are not a barrier blocking everyone out, nor are they an open sponge allowing everyone in, but they’re more like a filter that filters out unwanted behaviors and allows in wanted behaviors. Another way of seeing a boundary is as a minimum standard of conduct that will maintain healthy interactions, for example “I’m more than happy to interact with you when your tone of voice is calm and civil like mine,” or “I’m more than happy to interact with you when you also display some intellectual humility, and recognize your innate capacity as a human for cognitive bias.” Rather than lower ourselves to the behavioral standards of others, those who wish to interact with us must first rise up to our minimum standards instead. In this way, minimum standards protect us from unproductive situations that drain our energy, and yet still allow in productive and collaborative interactions.
Borders shouldn’t be just open or closed, as that is black and white codependent thinking, but rather they should be a filter that allows in wanted behaviors and keeps out unwanted behaviors. A nation of people with poor individual boundaries will also have poor national boundaries, but a nation of people with healthy individual boundaries will also have healthy national boundaries. Every nation is a collection of individuals, therefore the individuals of our nation need to upgrade their psychological boundaries first, and then our national boundaries will reflect our new minimum standards of personal conduct.
In regards to one legal system superseding and displacing an original legal framework, we can see we’re being invaded:
There can be no society or civilisation without a common statute for it’s members, without a common legal system which rules the persons and their property. History has shown that any conqueror or coloniser feels the need to unify its conquests, by imposing on them its own legal model. That is how the Roman legions extended the influence of the Roman law to the extreme limits of the Empire. To impose a legal model is a way to federate people of disparate territories. It is also a way to build a new legal system by deleting former model. ~On the Road to Holocracy
While people may look similar on the outside, each person carries within them a dominant legal system that influences their belief structures and behaviors; divergent legal systems do not coexist well long term, and in fact, creates conflict when the incoming legal system starts to displace the established system. This is why multiculturalism is such a horrible idea; it overloads one legal framework’s concepts with a diametrically opposed legal framework via mass immigration, and does not allow the incoming people to integrate into the host country’s legal underpinning, but instead conflicts with and ultimately displaces the host country’s legal framework. multiculturalism is therefore legalized aggression against a host nation’s legal framework, people, and culture—and a covert act of war.
THE UNITY PROCESS: We’ve created an integrative methodology called the Unity Process, which combines Natural Law, the Trivium Method, Socratic Questioning, Jungian shadow work, and Meridian Tapping—into an easy to use system that allows people to process their emotional upsets, work through trauma, correct poor thinking, discover meaning, set healthy boundaries, and refine their viewpoints. We practice it together in our groups, and in our individual sessions.
