LD - JanFeb

AFF— Resolved: Justice requires open borders for human migration.
Borders 1AC – Rawls

Because of current violence and economic squalor I stand firmly Resolved: Justice
requires open borders for human migration.
Briefly, we should define a terms in the resolution:
1 — Merriam Webster defines “require” as “to impose a compulsion or command on”.

(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/require)
2 — Borja Arnaiz, a professor of political science at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in

Madrid defines “open borders”:
Arnaiz ‘22; Borja, Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid,
Spain; Should we open borders? Yes, but not in the name of global justice; Ethics & Global Politics, Vol. 15, No. 2;
May 2022; Accessed online, 01/24/2023; https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2022.2081398
But what do open borders mean? The first thing to note is that borders are never entirely open or closed, it is
rather a matter of degree. Borders can be more or less open in a variety of ways depending on the recipient.
According to Chandran Kukathas (2021), openness can be conceptualized along three dimensions: entry,
participation, and membership. The easier it is to enter a country, participate in its affairs, and acquire formal
citizenship, the more open the border is, and vice versa. Nonetheless, this should not lead us to believe that open
borders are just more open borders, ‘rather, it entails that people can move freely across state lines
and settle abroad regardless of their citizenship’ (Sager 2020, 14). In this line, Lea Ypi (2008) considers
that any obstacle (physical or otherwise) to movement is in effect a restriction. It is very important to note,
however, that open borders do not entail an unqualified right to move. As will become clear later,
there are occasions when freedom of movement might be rightly curtailed, such as in the event of
a pandemic or a terrorist attack. In this way, open borders should be understood as a prima
facie unrestricted right to move across and settle in a different jurisdiction.
Let’s move on to the value level:

The most important value in today’s debate is Justice, which John Rawls defines in his
work, Justice as Fairness. Samuel Freeman writes
(Samuel Freeman is a professor of philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania; "Original Position", The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.); Accessed
01/25/2021) https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/original-position/
The original position is a central feature of John Rawls’s social contract account of justice, “justiceas fairness,” set forth
in A Theory of Justice (TJ). The original position is designed to be a fair and impartial point of view that is to be
adopted in our reasoning about fundamental principles of justice. In taking up this point of view, we are to
imagine ourselves in the position of free and equal persons who jointly agree upon and commit themselves to principles of
social and political justice. The main distinguishing feature of the original position is “the veil of ignorance”: to insure
impartiality of judgment, the parties are deprived of all knowledge of their personal characteristics and
social and historical circumstances. They do know of certain fundamental interests they all have, plus general facts
about psychology, economics, biology, and other social and natural sciences. The parties in the original position are presented
with a list of the main conceptions of justice drawn from the tradition of social and political philosophy, and are assigned
the task of choosing from among these alternatives the conception of justice that best advances their
interests in establishing conditions that enable them to effectively pursue their final ends and fundamental interests. Rawls
contends that the most rational choice for the parties in the original position are two principles of justice:
The first guarantees the equal basic rights and liberties needed to secure the fundamental interests of free and
equal citizens and to pursue a wide range of conceptions of the good. The second principle provides fair equality of
educational and employment opportunities enabling all to fairly compete for powers and positions of office;
and it secures for all a guaranteed minimum of the all-purpose means (including income and wealth) that
individuals need to pursue their interests and to maintain their self-respect as free and equal persons.
The Criterion, or measuring stick for the attainment of the value, is Equality. British
journalist Neal Lawson writes:
(Neal Lawson is British journalist and political activist who writes for The Guardian; Equality in the Good Society,
03/28/2011, Accessed online, 04/19/2018; https://www.socialeurope.eu/equality-in-the-good-society)
And so second we need a better concept of the good life and the good society. Here we have to ask why we want greater
equality? It’s not because people are equal – they clearly aren’t. We have different attributes and qualities.
But we are equal in terms of our right to make the most of the attributes, dreams and hopes
we have. Greater equality allows more people to express their unique differences, to develop fully
as human beings. Inequality denies us freedom. Equality buys us freedom – it makes freedom real. The more equal
allocation of resources provides the ability to take more control over our lives as individuals and collectively. Consumption
won’t buy us freedom – indeed in a world of turbo consumption inequality is bound to grow because all that matters is how
much more we have than the prison next door. We want equality not because we are the same but because we are different.
And equality provides the collective resources to buy freedom and control on a social scale through the state and other
collective forms of provision.
The connection is clear: Rawls’ system creates fair, just institutions that, because they
are not structurally biased, best promote equality. Let’s move now to…
Cont. 1
Contention one, where we will establish the framework for today’s discussion
A) — First, the phrase, “requires open borders” means that a system of open borders
is required, not that borders are required to always be open no matter what. Recall
that my definition of open borders allows for reasonable restrictions to be put in place
for security concerns. And, having a policy of open borders does not create an
obligation for a nation-state to provide the means for migrants to get there.
B) — Second, although bureaucratic changes would have to be made on the part of

individual countries in order to accommodate additional migrants, an international
system of policy open borders is compatible with the nation-state system because
states can still create policy in other areas.
C) — Third, because the resolution is not country-specific and is grounded in the

ethical question of justice, this debate is not about the need for, or feasibility of
implementing, such a system. It is only a question of whether or not such a system is
required by justice.
D) — Finally, you should be skeptical of a Negative framework that invokes some

concept like “utility” or “justice” without a mechanism that explains how to make
moral or ethical decisions in their framework. If, at the end of this round, you
understand how to implement Rawls’ conception of justice best, then it should frame
your ballot and you should vote Affirmative.
Let’s move now to…

Cont. 2
Contention Two, where we’ll discuss the application of Rawls’ theory of Justice to
human migration:
A) Although Rawls wrote about an individual society, expanding the scope of his
thinking to the international level is appropriate.
Carens ‘87; Joseph, professor of political science at the University of Toronto; Aliens and Citizens: The Case for
Open Borders; The Review of Politics, Vol. 49, No. 2; Spring 1987; Accessed online, 01/24/2023;
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1407506
Like a number of other commentators, I want to claim that many of the reasons that make the original
position useful in thinking about questions of justice within a given society also make it useful for
thinking about justice across different societies.8 Cases like migration and trade, where people
interact across governmental boundaries, raise questions about whether the background conditions
of the interactions are fair. Moreover, anyone who wants to be moral will feel obliged to justify the use of force
against other human beings, whether they are members of the same society or not. In thinking about these
matters we don't want to be biased by self-interested or partisan considerations, and we don't want existing
injustices (if any) to warp our reflections. Moreover, we can take it as a basic presupposition that we should
treat all human beings, not just members of our own society, as free and equal moral
persons.9 The original position offers a strategy of moral reasoning that helps to address these concerns. The
purpose of the "veil of ignorance" is "to nullify the effects of specific contingencies which put men at odds"
because natural and social contingencies are "arbitrary from a moral point of view" and therefore are factors
which ought not to influence the choice of principles of justice.10 Whether one is a citizen of a rich nation
or a poor one, whether one is already a citizen of a particular state or an alien who wishes to
become a citizen-this is the sort of specific contingency that could set people at odds. A fair
procedure for choosing principles of justice must therefore exclude knowledge of these
circumstances, just as it excludes knowledge of one's race or sex or social class. We should therefore take
a global, not a national, view of the original position.
B) In a global original position, that development of a just system would include open
borders
Let us therefore assume a global view of the original position. Those in the original position
would be prevented by the "veil of ignorance" from knowing their place of birth or whether
they were members of one particular society rather than another. They would presumably choose
the same two principles of justice. (I will simply assume that Rawls's argument for the two principles is correct,
though the point is disputed.) These principles would apply globally, and the next task would be to design
institutions to implement the principles - still from the perspective of the original position. Would these institutions
include sovereign states as they currently exist? In ideal theory, where we can assume away historical obstacles
and the dangers of injustice, some of the reasons for defending the integrity of existing states disappear. But ideal
theory does not require the elimination of all linguistic, cultural, and historical differences. Let us assume that a
general case for decentralization of power to respect these sorts of factors would justify the existence of
autonomous political communities comparable to modern states.13 That does not mean that all the existing
features of state sovereignty would be justified. State sovereignty would be (morally) constrained by the principles
of justice. For example, no state could restrict religious freedom and inequalities among states would be restricted
by an international difference principle. What about freedom of movement among states? Would it
be regarded as a basic liberty in a global system of equal liberties, or would states have the
right to limit entry and exit? Even in an ideal world people might have powerful reasons to
want to migrate from one state to another. Economic opportunities for particular individuals
might vary greatly from one state to another even if economic inequalities among states were
reduced by an international difference principle. One might fall in love with a citizen from another land, one
might belong to a religion which has few followers in one's native land and many in another, one might seek
cultural opportunities that are only available in another society. More generally, one has only to ask
whether the right to migrate freely within a given society is an important liberty. The same sorts
of considerations make migration across state boundaries important.14 Behind the "veil of ignorance," in
considering possible restrictions on freedom, one adopts the perspective of the one who would be
most disadvantaged by the restrictions, in this case the perspective of the alien who wants to
immigrate. In the original position, then, one would insist that the right to migrate be
included in the system of basic liberties for the same reasons that one would insist that the
right to religious freedom be included: it might prove essential to one's plan of life. Once the
"veil of ignorance" is lifted, of course, one might not make use of the right, but that is true of other rights and
liberties as well. So, the basic agreement among those in the original position would be to permit no restrictions on
migration (whether emigration or immigration).
Cont. 3
In contention three, we consider moving from the theoretical realm to the practical
A) Rawls concludes that, even in the face of nonideal realities that might call for some
restrictions, we should still pursue open borders
In ideal theory we face a world of just states with an international difference principle. Under such conditions,
the likelihood of mass migrations threatening to the public order of any particular state
seems small. So, there is little room for restrictions on immigration in ideal theory. But what
about nonideal theory, where one takes into account both historical contingencies and the
unjust actions of others? In the nonideal, real world there are vast economic inequalities
among nations (presumably much larger than would exist under an international difference principle).
Moreover, people disagree about the nature of justice and often fail to live up to whatever
principles they profess. Most states consider it necessary to protect themselves against the
possibility of armed invasion or covert subversion. And many states deprive their own citizens of basic rights
and liberties. How does all this affect what justice requires with regard to migration? First, the
conditions of the real world greatly strengthen the case for state sovereignty, especially in those states that have relatively just
domestic institutions. National security is a crucial form of public order. So, states are clearly entitled to prevent the entry of
people (whether armed invaders or subversives) whose goal is the overthrow of just institutions. On the other hand, the
strictures against an expansive use of the public order argument also apply to claims about national security. A related concern
is the claim that immigrants from societies where liberal democratic values are weak or absent would pose a threat to the
maintenance of a just public order. Again the distinction between reasonable expectations and hypothetical speculations is
crucial. These sorts of arguments were used during the nineteenth century against Catholics and Jews from Europe and against
all Asians and Africans. If we judge those arguments to have been proven wrong (not to say ignorant and bigoted) by history,
we should be wary of resurrecting them in another guise. A more realistic concern is the sheer size of the potential demand. If a
rich country like the United States were simply to open its doors, the number of people from poor countries seeking to
immigrate might truly be overwhelming, even if their goals and beliefs posed no threat to national security or liberal democratic
values."7 Under these conditions, it seems likely that some restrictions on immigration would be justified under the public order
principle. But it is important to recall all the qualifications that apply to this. In particular, the need for some
restriction would not justify any level of restriction whatsoever or restrictions for other reasons, but
only that level of restriction essential to maintain public order. This would surely imply a much less restrictive
policy than the one currently in force which is shaped by so many other considerations besides the need to maintain public
order. Rawlsasserts that the priority accorded to liberty normally holds under nonideal
conditions as well. This suggests that, if there are restrictions on immigration for public order
reasons, priority should be given to those seeking to immigrate because they have been
denied basic liberties over those seeking to immigrate simply for economic opportunities.
There is a further complication, however. The priority of liberty holds absolutely only in the long run. Under
nonideal conditions it can sometimes be justifiable to restrict liberty for the sake of economic gains, if that will
improve the position of the worst-off and speed the creation of conditions in which all will enjoy equal and full
liberties. Would it be justifiable to restrict immigration for the sake of the worst-off?
B) Modern trade agreements provide a blueprint for ensuring justice and freedom of
movement
Arnaiz ‘22; Borja, Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos,
Madrid, Spain; Should we open borders? Yes, but not in the name of global justice; Ethics & Global Politics, Vol. 15,
No. 2; May 2022; Accessed online, 01/24/2023; https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2022.2081398
In conclusion, and as a reason for optimism, we should note that there is already a realm in which
freedom of movement is not considered to be in tension with distributive justice. At the
regional level, free mobility is often seen as mutually beneficial in both economic and social
terms. Such rapprochement often begins by the signing of trade agreements with the intention of
promoting the free movement of goods, capital, and sometimes labour. And although they do not
come without controversy, they do strengthen ties between countries insofar as they share common goals and
they have a sense of mutual responsibility. Eventually, such agreements may lay the foundations for the
creation of political bodies and legal institutions with redistributive powers, as in the case of
the European Union. Current dynamics seem to point in this direction, which is good news for
global justice activists and proponents of freedom of movement alike. We will have to keep a
critical eye on how the events unfold, since these alliances can effectively advance freedom of movement and
justice within some regions, but they can also lead to an ever-stricter control of their external borders, as it is
happening in Fortress Europe.
Cont. 4
Open borders don’t have to just solve structural violence, they can also save our life
Nuclear tensions are rising in Kashmir a separatist state between India and Iran, only
open borders can solve them
Thakur, '19 — Ramesh Thakur, a former United Nations assistant secretary-general, is Emeritus
Professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University. August 7th 2010.
"India's Bad Bet in Kashmir." Project Syndicate. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/india-
removes-kashmir-autonomy-angers-pakistan-by-ramesh-thakur-2019-08 // rhetoric modified, denoted
in brackets — :>
The combination of surging Hindu nationalism in India, Kashmiri grievances against India’s government, Pakistan-backed jihadist
groups waging hybrid warfare in Indian Kashmir, the new normal of India’s retaliatory military strikes on Pakistan, and growing
nuclear stockpiles has turned Kashmir into a tinderbox . India’s decision to withdraw Kashmir’s special status threatens to be the
spark that ignites it. CANBERRA – Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has decided to strip Kashmir of its special status – which granted considerable
autonomy to the disputed Muslim-majority territory – and split it into two union territories (a status below that of states) that India will govern more directly.
Kashmir’s special status, granted under Article 370 of India’s constitution, was essential to facilitate its accession to newly
independent India over seven decades ago. In transforming its relationship with the territory, which Pakistan also claims, the Indian
government has jeopardized regional peace and stability. The Modi government is well aware that the move will not
be well received in Kashmir and Pakistan. In the days preceding the announcement, it deployed thousands more troops to the
territory. After the announcement, it imposed a curfew on residents; evacuated tourists and pilgrims; placed prominent local politicians (who immediately
denounced the move) under house arrest; and imposed media and telecoms blackouts. But, as members of most Indian opposition parties recognize, the Modi
government’s capacity to quell resistance in Kashmir, which has endured decades of violence, is limited. Ominously,
Pakistan has already rejected the move “unequivocally,” calling it illegal , and pledged to “exercise all possible options” to counter it.
This raises the specter of another military clash between the two nuclear-armed neighbors . There are three
reasons why the dispute over Kashmir has proved so intractable – and why India’s unilateral attempt to force a shift in its own
favor may not work . The first reason relates to identity. Kashmir represents the unfinished business from the 1947 partition of India that created
Pakistan. On the one hand, the existence of a Muslim-majority Indian province contradicts Pakistan’s raison d’être as the homeland for all the subcontinent’s
Muslims. On the other, the loss of India’s only Muslim-majority province would undermine its core identity as a
secular republic and leave its remaining 180 million Muslims vulnerable .1 Kashmir lies at the nexus of these
conflicting imperatives, because, unlike other former princely states, Kashmir acceded to, but did not merge with, the Union of India. In doing so, it secured
autonomy on all matters except defense, foreign affairs, and communications. Under Article 35A, added to the Indian
constitution in 1954, Kashmiri citizens were afforded additional special rights and privileges, including with
regard to property ownership and government jobs. Second, Pakistan has the will and the means to create small-scale mischief
essentially indefinitely – or at least for the foreseeable future – but knows that it would lose a full-scale war. India knows that it could defeat
Pakistan on the battlefield, but not decisively enough to [stop] cripple the latter’s ability to resume its cross-
border incursions . This military balance naturally leads to stalemate, rather than decisive resolution. Lastly,
India is effectively trapped in a policy prison cell that is largely of its own making. To Indian voters, the
government claims that there is no dispute at all. Kashmir is an integral part of India, it insists, so no negotiations are needed. To the
world, Indian leaders point to Pakistan’s perfidy in supporting jihadist groups that launch terrorist attacks
on India, and reject any effort to internationalize discussions of the issue. Just weeks before the recent announcement,
when US President Donald Trump offered to mediate the dispute over Kashmir, Modi flatly refused, reiterating that any discussion of the subject would involve only
India and Pakistan. India
refuses to engage with Pakistan until attacks are brought to a halt – a stance that has
pushed the country into a corner. But it is Pakistan that closes the cell door, owing to the nature of its state, in which the military, rather than the
civilian government, decides key policies, including on Kashmir. And the policy the military has chosen has been to exploit the Kashmir insurgency as part of its effort
to “bleed India with a thousand cuts.” To some extent, however, India is losing the credibility it needs to push back, as the
government, ruled by Modi’s Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, threatens to transform the country into a kind of Hindu Pakistan. The BJP
government’s religious chauvinism, together with its handling of the Kashmir conflict, has severely
damaged India’s reputation.1 Still, the damage to Pakistan’s international standing has been more extreme, given the country’s consistent support
for jihadists. As then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton famously warned in 2011, Pakistan could not keep snakes in its backyard and expect only its neighbors to
be bitten. The combination of surging Hindu nationalism in India, Kashmiri grievances against India’s government, Pakistan-backed jihadist groups waging hybrid
warfare in Indian Kashmir, the new normal of India’s retaliatory military strikes on Pakistan, and growing nuclear stockpiles has turned Kashmir into a tinderbox.
India’s decision to withdraw Kashmir’s special status threatens to be the spark that ignites it. Instead
of moving forward with this
dangerous policy , India should agree with Pakistan to transform the de facto international border – which
has barely shifted over 70 years of conflict – into an official, open one, across which Indians and Pakistanis could travel
freely . This would facilitate people-to-people connections , increased market integration , and
cooperation in a range of areas, from tourism to environmental management . By boosting shared prosperity,
such a step would enable both countries to invest more in social security , welfare , and economic
development . Closer integration across South Asia would likely follow.
Without resolving border tensions, an India-Pakistani war kills 2 billion

Wigglesworth, '22 — Alex Wigglesworth, degree in medical anthropology and global health, citing
new study led by scientists at Rutger. August 15th 2022. "Even a limited nuclear war could kill a third of
world's population, study shows." LA Times. https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-08-
15/even-limited-nuclear-war-would-kill-billions-study-finds — :>
If India and Pakistan were to each target urban centers in the opposing country with 250 100-kiloton nuclear
weapons , which they are believed to possess, about 127 million people in South Asia would be killed by explosions, fires and radiation, the study
found. An estimated 37 million metric tons of soot would be injected into the atmosphere, sending
temperatures across the planet plunging by more than 5 degrees Celsius, a range last experienced during the Ice Age,
according to earlier research by Robock and others. Food production would consequently collapse , with the number of calories available
from major crops and fisheries falling by up to 42% and the resulting famine killing over 2 billion people worldwide, according to
the most recent study.
1AR---X/T’s
def
Open borders on default allow people to move freely except for special scenarios like
pandemics, terrorism, or disease [which solves their offense about conditional
borders] — that’s our Borja Arnaiz evidence, a professor of political science.
Value — / — Criterion
The value is justice and the way to measure it is with progress, open borders are
critical to ensuring that all people have the ability to engage with financial
opportunities or the ability to flee from cartel violence. I think that it is morally unjust
to kill people by barring their entry — for example on the U.S Mexico border — 250
migrants have been murdered by CBP Border Agents in the past few years but many
more have been maimed by wars and killed by cartel violence.
You should frame your analysis through Rawl’s theory of the vail of ignorance, that if
you were reborn in a random place-you wouldn’t want it to be inescapable and war
stricken Syria but freedom of migration. Thus you should help the most disadvantaged
first which maximizes equality.
1
Contention one frames our unique burdens
A) — We do not need to defend 100% open borders.
B) — International nations have different norms — we defend the maximized version

of their model of open borders.
C) — We don’t need to defend a mechanism of open borders, ideally that they are
required for justice.
D) — You should hold the NEG to sufficiently explaining their value, if you can’t re-
articulate it on the ballot – vote AFF on presumption.
2
On contention two is actualization of our value — Rawls states that we should

maximize happiness for everyone BUT we start at the bottom of the pyramid to create
the most amount of justice.
3
4
2AR---X/T’s
You should filter the debate through Rawl’s theory of the veil of ignorance which says
that you should increase justice for the most disadvantaged person — we accomplish
this in two ways A) it’s a simple fact that humans need to be able to migrate to escape
poverty, cartel violence or wars.
Extend our evidence that says India and Pakistan are raising nuclear tensions in the
middle east now because of fighting over the territory of Kashmir BUT open borders
have the ability to curb these tensions by proposing an open border solution, our
Thakur evidence indicates that an increase in cooperation between these nations, for
example: market integration, tourism, environmental cohesion, security, welfare, co-
economic development which all require a bigger level of free-er borders, these will
help to de-escalate a nuclear war that would kill more than two billion people. This
large of an impact should be the sole deciding factor in the round because it would
effect justice the most. It is simply unacceptable to let a quarter of our worlds
population be annihilated by radiation and the follow on effects like our ozone layer
depleting as a result of nuclear ash and collapse of worldwide agricultural systems
because food needs light — this would only exacerbate the existing inequalities with
food distribution and health services that exist now which means that we access their
case offense.
Borders 1NC
Because of the inefficiencies of the AFF’s proposal and alternative systems of border
regulation, like targeted admission--I negate that Resolved: Justice requires open
borders for human migration.
Briefly, we should define a terms in the resolution:
1 — Merriam Webster defines “require” as “to impose a compulsion or command on”.

(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/require)
2 — Borja Arnaiz, a professor of political science at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in

Madrid defines “open borders”:
When we talk about open borders, we do not merely imply the relaxation of immigration controls,
but an unrestricted freedom of movement between countries. In turn, lifting all restrictions does
not only entail the absence of direct coercion on the subjects, but also the absence of all
conditionality on the right to move (Ypi 2008). Note, however, that this is not exactly what the advocates
of global justice suggest. In addition to the state not interfering with the attempt of individuals to cross the border,
they demand that they be granted the full panoply of rights enjoyed by citizens, including access to social welfare
programmes (Carens 2013). In other words, what is being demanded here is not just freedom of
movement (understood as a negative duty of non-interference), but a right to immigrate (with the
corresponding positive duties of assistance by the state). 8
Let’s move on to the value level:
The supreme value for this round is Rule Utilitarianism. Dr. Dona Warren, a
philosophy professor, explains:
Dona Warren is the Director of the Critical Thinking Center at University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
https://www4.uwsp.edu/philosophy/dwarren/IntroBook/ValueTheory%5CConsequentialism%5CActVsRule
%5CActVsRule.htm
“See the difference? This kind of utilitarianism doesn’t assess individual actions for their utility, but rather focuses on the utility of the general
rules of which a particular action would be an instance. Not surprisingly, this is called “rule
utilitarianism,” and it says that an
action is good [if] it conforms to a rule which, if generally practiced, would produce the
greatest happiness for the greatest number. As we’ve seen, rule utilitarianism would have us ask two
questions: 1) “What general rule would I be following if I did this particular action?” and 2)
“Would this rule, if generally followed, maximize happiness?” To this extent, it’s more theoretically complex
than act utilitarianism, but because it can give us general rules to follow, it’s simpler to apply. We no longer
need to worry too much about the specific circumstances surrounding any particular ethical
decision. And maybe, with rule utilitarianism will enable us to resolve some of the problems with utilitarianism we’ve discussed. Let’s see if
rule utilitarianism allows us to respond to the objections to utilitarianism that we’ve seen so far.
The Criterion, or measuring stick for the attainment of the value, is Progress. Robert
Nisbet, a professor of sociology at Columbia University, writes,
Nisbet, Robert (1979). "The Idea of Progress," Literature of Liberty, Vol. II, No. 1, pp. 7–37. Robert Nisbet (1913-
1993), former professor of sociology at Columbia University, is the author of Sociology as an Art Form; The Social
Philosophers; Prejudices: A Philosophical Dictionary; The Sociological Tradition; History of the Idea of Progress;
and Twilight of Authority, also published by Liberty Fund.
The essence of the Western idea of progress can be simply stated: mankind has advanced in the past, is now
advancing, and may be expected to continue advancing in the future. But what, it will be asked, does "advance"
mean? Here matters necessarily become more complex. Its meanings have ranged from the most sublimely
spiritual advance to the absolutely physical or material. In its most common form the idea of progress has
referred, ever since the Greeks, to the advance of knowledge, more particularly the kind of practical
knowledge contained in the arts and sciences. But the idea has also been made to refer to the achievement
of what the early Christians called earthly paradise: a state of such spiritual exaltation that man's liberation from all
tormenting physical compulsions becomes complete. We find the perspective of progress used, especially in
the modern world, to give substance to the hope for a future characterized by individual freedom,
equality, or justice. But we also find the idea of progress made to serve belief in the desirability and necessity of
political absolutism, racial superiority, and the totalitarian state. In sum, there is almost no end to goals and
purposes which have been declared the fulfillment or outcome of mankind's progress.
In the context of the resolution, the connection is clear: the resolution asks us make a
rule utilitarian judgment that open borders generally maximize happiness and utility,
and the Negative will demonstrate that they do not by showing that more and better
progress is possible without open borders.
Contentions:
1 — My definition of “open borders” emphasizes that such an arrangement is not just

the removal of the negative, i.e. that countries do not restrict who can enter, but the
extension of the positive, i.e. the duties of the state. This means that the Affirmative
must defend the extension of social benefits to those who immigrate.
2 — Although the Affirmative is not literally required to defend a mechanism by which

any particular country would implement an open border arrangement, they do need
to provide an explanation for how such a global system would operate and ensure
that people who want to migrate are capable of doing so. If such a system cannot be
realized, then any claims of ensuring things like justice and equality are hollow.
3 — A) — Borders are not the cause of, or solution to, poverty and inequality
The argument for open borders as a remedy of global justice is often based on the following premises: (1) The world in its
current state is unjust, millions of people lack access to the basic resources for a decent life; (2) borders (re)produce this
injustice, as they spatially delimit opportunities and prevent people from moving where these are found; (3) a world with open
borders would alleviate this situation by allowing people to migrate to the countries that offer the most opportunities. The first
of these premises seems difficult to rebut. As Thomas Nagel (2005, 113) says, ‘[t]his may be the least controversial claim one
could make in political theory.’ The fight against poverty is one of the biggest challenges of humanity. The idea of open
borders is suggested by some theorists of global justice as a remedy to poverty (Carens 2013; Velasco 2016a,
2016b). The solution lies, we are told, in lifting restrictions on immigration and allowing free movement across
borders. But to reach this conclusion we have to assume the second premise, namely, that the border
regime is the source of the problems, and additionally, that poverty is at the root of international
migration. Indeed, it is often argued that in a just world immigration would no longer be an issue (e.g. Rawls 1999, 9; Shachar
2009, 5). The second premise is more questionable though. Poverty and inequalities precede borders, which – at
least as we know them today – are a relatively recent invention dating back three centuries and a half to the Peace of
Westphalia (Graziano 2018). Nor does the international regime devised by Western powers seem to be the only – not even the
main – cause of the poverty of developing countries (Acemoglu and Robinson 2012). In fact, one does not need to cross
state borders to encounter enormous inequalities in income and wealth. The national rich do not
need borders, it suffices with the private property regime and the coercive apparatus of the state to
‘protect’ themselves. If anything, borders are just a small (but integral) part of that coercive apparatus designed to exclude
the poor from the other side.1 In this sense, rather than the origin, borders are the material expression of a
profoundly unequal world, a sort of topography or spatial embodiment of inequality. If borders were the actual
cause of global poverty and inequality, then it would make sense to call for their abolition. But to the
extent that they are just one face of the problem, it does not seem that the solution lies in their opening, and much less in their
removal. In fact, most cosmopolitan thinkers are extremely cautious when conceiving their ideal world, making it clear that they
do not advocate for a world without borders, but for a world with open borders (Bauböck 2009; Carens 2013; Velasco 2016a,
2016b). In defending their permanence as jurisdictional demarcations, they implicitly recognize that borders are not the
problem. The problem consists, above all, in the political, economic, and legal framework that perpetuates an unequal
distribution of wealth. Therefore, if borders are only a tiny part of that framework, it is unclear why their opening would be an
effective, let alone definitive, solution to the problems that global justice confronts.2 At best, a world with open borders
would be a world with greater mobility, one from which only some could benefit; usually the people
best situated in their countries of origin, who are not the most in need (Brock 2009). Consequently, it is
difficult to see how this could help the poorest people who lack the minimum resources and skills to
migrate (Pogge 2006) – hence the third premise is also controversial. Add to all this the problems of coordination and
conflicts that would arise in the allocation of costs and benefits, not to mention the fact that many states would refuse outright
to open their borders (as is already the case with the accommodation of refugees). The most we can look forward to for the
moment is a world with partially open regional borders. However, even in that optimistic scenario, internal opening would most
likely come hand in hand with the closure of external borders (as in the European Union); or else new borders would spring
within cities and neighbourhoods in the form of ‘a thousand petty fortresses’ (Walzer 1983, 38). But even those countries that
democratically decided to open their borders, it remains to be seen how long it would take voters to punish their governments
at the polls. Not because of selfishness or xenophobia, but only because the opportunity costs would be too high for those few
well-intentioned countries.
B — Open borders are incompatible with distributive justice and equality, and actually
make them worse
The idea of open borders seems deeply at odds with the principles of global distributive justice. The
opening of borders is nothing but the removal of barriers to free transit, so that individuals can freely
decide which country to live and work in, and with whom to cooperate and associate voluntarily.
Distributive justice, by contrast, requires the intervention of the state (or other type of public authority)
to ‘fairly’ allocate the benefits and burdens of social cooperation, usually through the exaction of taxes
and the coactive transfer of resources from the richest to the poorest segments of the population. But
how might distributive justice look like in the context of migration? Let us begin with the
countries of origin. Governments in developing countries could adduce reasons of justice to justify
restrictions on the emigration of their qualified or wealthy citizens.9 Such a policy could take the form of a ban on
the emigration of highly qualified professionals most needed in their countries of origin (e.g.
doctors, engineers, scientists, to mention just a few); or in a less draconian version, an obligation to work in the
country for a certain amount of time or to pay a tax before departure. As for the receiving countries, let us
imagine that a government committed to global justice decided to preferentially admit
refugees and necessitous migrants, whilst at the same time setting a limit on the so-called
‘economic’ immigration. This policy would involve the poorest migrants taking precedence
over the rich ones, and once the state’s obligations of distributive justice had been
discharged, the closing of borders to the latter. However, a human right to migrate must be
understood as the right of every human being, irrespective of their talents, resources or any
other circumstances, to travel and establish their residence in any country. And, as such, ‘it
attaches as much to the rich Canadian wishing to settle in Germany as it does to the desperate Somali trying to
cross the border into Kenya’ (Miller 2016a, 49). We can now clearly see how these remedial policies come into
conflict with the very idea of freedom of movement. In all these cases, the state would be favouring one type of
immigration over another, or to put it bluntly, it would be restricting the freedom of movement of the relatively
better-off for the benefit of the least advantaged.10
C) — Open borders are not required for justice and do not help create equality. If you
believe that these things are important, then you should endorse a system of targeted
admission that ensures justice better than the Affirmative.
The second objection, somewhat more plausible, is that immigration benefits both sending and receiving
countries, so that it is not a zero-sum game in terms of redistribution. But if it were indeed mutually beneficial,
then the inequality between these countries would not be significantly diminished. And this is tantamount to
asserting that inequality is a chronic disease with which we must learn to live. Alternatively, one could say that
inequality is not a matter of global justice, but that what it really matters is the eradication of
absolute poverty (sufficientarianism). But notice that this is not what most cosmopolitan accounts of
distributive justice aim for. In fact, Thomas Nagel (2005) has argued that ‘[j]ustice as ordinarily
understood requires more than mere humanitarian assistance to those in desperate need, and
injustice can exist without anyone being on the verge of starvation.’ Even if the concern were
only with rising global living standards up to a subsistence level, justice would not require an
indiscriminate policy of open borders, but a targeted admissions policy (Song 2019).
In conclusion, it is incorrect to assume that borders are the root cause of inequality
and injustice, implementing them is unlikely to resolve these issues and may make
them worse, and a system of targeted admissions makes more sense to build around.
Let’s move now to the issues with the Affirmative Case.
1NR---X/T’s
Def’s
Open borders as defined by the department of political science and public

administration and Borja writes that borders are free moving without restrictions
meaning that the AFF has to defend migrants being able to freely move between
borders of a country —
Even if you don’t think we’ve won this level of debate, ill do that work below.
Value —/— Criterion
The value is Rule Utilitarianism wherein you vote NEG for the model of borders that is
the most just — frame our value through targeted admissions, countries would have
the ability to regulate entry of immigrants which solves their offense and maximizes
happiness. Pair it with Rawl’s theory of the “veil of ignorance” which constitutes that
we should help the most disadvantaged in society and compound it with utilitarianism
above, this calculus proves that only my model of borders solves because [under their
definition] border’s would still be regulated for concern of the economy, population,
and potential security threats BUT that does NOT include specific admissions to the
nation which means that they don’t have a mechanism or filter to enforce that the
most disadvantaged migrants are admitted instead their model would admit high class
workers, tourism, etc., which take the place of immigrants in need of escape violence
or future opportunities which means affirming the resolution is counterproductive for
migrant justice, that’s our Arnaiz evidence — even if you don’t believe that
utilitarianism is the best value there are two safety nets for still voting NEG A) We’ve
won that they create injustice because they have no way to filter immigrants which
means the most privileged would take the spots of those under privileged which is a
case turn and B) we’ll prove that we win the debate even under their interpretation of
the resolution which I’ll do below on case.
AT: Util bad

A — They can not give you specific examples of why using util in this scenario is
uniquely bad, sure it can be applied in malignant ways but this round doesn’t set a
precedent for future decision making and justifying the moral mishaps. The 2ar is too
late!
AT: AFF Case
If we win even a risk of case mitigation you should compound it with the work I did
above—I strongly encourage you to vote negative in endorsement of utilitarian border
management.
“1AC”
Framework
I stand resolved, Justice requires open borders for human migration, before we begin I
will define a few terms in the resolution:
1 — An open border defined by both Wikipedia and Definitions as, “a border that
enables free movement of people between jurisdictions with few or no restrictions on
movement, that is to say lacking substantive border control.”
https://www.definitions.net/definition/open+border
2 — Cornell law defines justice as,

CL, ’20 — Cornell Law, legal information institute. 2020. LII. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex
/justice#:~:text=Justice%20is%20a%20legal%20structure,the%20state%20courts%20of%20appeal.
Justice is the ethical, philosophical idea that people are to be treated impartially, fairly, properly, and
reasonably by the law and by arbiters of the law, that laws are to ensure that no harm befalls another, and that,
where harm is alleged, a remedial action is taken - both the accuser and the accused receive a morally right consequence
merited by their actions (see: due process).
3 — Human migration includes but is not limited to international travel, a definition

from the United Nations explains,
UN, ’20 — United Nations, uhh the UN. 2020. “Peace, dignity and equality on a healthy planet,
Migration.” UN. https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/migration
The UN Migration Agency (IOM) defines a migrant as any person who is moving or has moved across an
international border or within a State away from his/her habitual place of residence, regardless of (1) the person’s
legal status; (2) whether the movement is voluntary or involuntary; (3) what the causes for the movement
are; or (4) what the length of the stay is.
The value is life because it is a prerequisite to achieving justice, if we are dead it can’t
happen!
The value criterion is util
There are ‘x’ reasons to prefer our criterion:

1—
2—
Cont. 1 — s/v
Contention 1 is structural violence
Scenario one is Agent Assimilation—
The U.S Mexico border — 250 migrants have been murdered by CBP Border Agents
since 2010.
Aceves, '22 — William J. Aceves, law professor at California Western School of Law in San Diego. Nov
30th 2022. "Op-Ed: U.S border killings evade justice . An international commission can change that." LA
Times. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-11-30/u-s-border-killings-anastasio-hernandez-
rojas-death-hearing — :>
On May 28, 2010, Hernández-Rojas — an undocumented Mexican national and father of five — attempted to cross
from Mexico into the U.S. at the border near San Diego. He was detained by border patrol agents. He was then
violently abused , according to detailed allegations presented to the Inter-American Commission. Hernández-Rojas was punched , kicked ,
dragged , Tasered and denied medical treatment by officers. Witnesses reported that he did not attempt
to harm the officers. On recordings, he is heard screaming in pain and begging for mercy. As a result of this
brutal assault, Hernández-Rojas suffered severe physical injuries , brain damage and eventual cardiac arrest .
He died three days after being taken into custody. The San Diego medical examiner’s office ruled the death a
homicide . No criminal charges were ever filed in this case. In fact, the Justice Department declined to bring
charges against the CBP officers involved on the grounds that their actions complied with established use of force
policies. A lawsuit filed by Hernández-Rojas’ family against the United States government resulted in a $1-million settlement, but no admission of fault by U.S.
officials. For decades, the same cycle — kill , pay and deny responsibility — has continued. Since 2010, there have
been nearly 250 fatal encounters between migrants and CBP agents. Despite these deaths, few CBP officers have been
prosecuted. There have been no known convictions of agents for border killings.
Cont. 2 — ex !
Contention two is border conflicts — Scenario one is India/Pakistani tensions,
Nuclear tensions are rising in Kashmir, only open borders can solve them
Thakur, '19 — Ramesh Thakur, a former United Nations assistant secretary-general, is Emeritus
Professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University. August 7th 2010.
"India's Bad Bet in Kashmir." Project Syndicate. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/india-
removes-kashmir-autonomy-angers-pakistan-by-ramesh-thakur-2019-08 // rhetoric modified, denoted
in brackets — :>
The combination of surging Hindu nationalism in India, Kashmiri grievances against India’s government, Pakistan-backed jihadist
groups waging hybrid warfare in Indian Kashmir, the new normal of India’s retaliatory military strikes on Pakistan, and growing
nuclear stockpiles has turned Kashmir into a tinderbox . India’s decision to withdraw Kashmir’s special status threatens to be the
spark that ignites it. CANBERRA – Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has decided to strip Kashmir of its special status – which granted considerable
autonomy to the disputed Muslim-majority territory – and split it into two union territories (a status below that of states) that India will govern more directly.
Kashmir’s special status, granted under Article 370 of India’s constitution, was essential to facilitate its accession to newly
independent India over seven decades ago. In transforming its relationship with the territory, which Pakistan also claims, the Indian
government has jeopardized regional peace and stability. The Modi government is well aware that the move will not
be well received in Kashmir and Pakistan. In the days preceding the announcement, it deployed thousands more troops to the
territory. After the announcement, it imposed a curfew on residents; evacuated tourists and pilgrims; placed prominent local politicians (who immediately
denounced the move) under house arrest; and imposed media and telecoms blackouts. But, as members of most Indian opposition parties recognize, the Modi
government’s capacity to quell resistance in Kashmir, which has endured decades of violence, is limited. Ominously,
Pakistan has already rejected the move “unequivocally,” calling it illegal , and pledged to “exercise all possible options” to counter it.
This raises the specter of another military clash between the two nuclear-armed neighbors . There are three
reasons why the dispute over Kashmir has proved so intractable – and why India’s unilateral attempt to force a shift in its own
favor may not work . The first reason relates to identity. Kashmir represents the unfinished business from the 1947 partition of India that created
Pakistan. On the one hand, the existence of a Muslim-majority Indian province contradicts Pakistan’s raison d’être as the homeland for all the subcontinent’s
Muslims. On the other, the loss of India’s only Muslim-majority province would undermine its core identity as a
secular republic and leave its remaining 180 million Muslims vulnerable .1 Kashmir lies at the nexus of these
conflicting imperatives, because, unlike other former princely states, Kashmir acceded to, but did not merge with, the Union of India. In doing so, it secured
autonomy on all matters except defense, foreign affairs, and communications. Under Article 35A, added to the Indian
constitution in 1954, Kashmiri citizens were afforded additional special rights and privileges, including with
regard to property ownership and government jobs. Second, Pakistan has the will and the means to create small-scale mischief
essentially indefinitely – or at least for the foreseeable future – but knows that it would lose a full-scale war. India knows that it could defeat
Pakistan on the battlefield, but not decisively enough to [stop] cripple the latter’s ability to resume its cross-
border incursions . This military balance naturally leads to stalemate, rather than decisive resolution. Lastly,
India is effectively trapped in a policy prison cell that is largely of its own making. To Indian voters, the
government claims that there is no dispute at all. Kashmir is an integral part of India, it insists, so no negotiations are needed. To the
world, Indian leaders point to Pakistan’s perfidy in supporting jihadist groups that launch terrorist attacks
on India, and reject any effort to internationalize discussions of the issue. Just weeks before the recent announcement,
when US President Donald Trump offered to mediate the dispute over Kashmir, Modi flatly refused, reiterating that any discussion of the subject would involve only
India and Pakistan. India
refuses to engage with Pakistan until attacks are brought to a halt – a stance that has
pushed the country into a corner. But it is Pakistan that closes the cell door, owing to the nature of its state, in which the military, rather than the
civilian government, decides key policies, including on Kashmir. And the policy the military has chosen has been to exploit the Kashmir insurgency as part of its effort
to “bleed India with a thousand cuts.” To some extent, however, India is losing the credibility it needs to push back, as the
government, ruled by Modi’s Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, threatens to transform the country into a kind of Hindu Pakistan. The BJP
government’s religious chauvinism, together with its handling of the Kashmir conflict, has severely
damaged India’s reputation.1 Still, the damage to Pakistan’s international standing has been more extreme, given the country’s consistent support
for jihadists. As then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton famously warned in 2011, Pakistan could not keep snakes in its backyard and expect only its neighbors to
be bitten. The combination of surging Hindu nationalism in India, Kashmiri grievances against India’s government, Pakistan-backed jihadist groups waging hybrid
warfare in Indian Kashmir, the new normal of India’s retaliatory military strikes on Pakistan, and growing nuclear stockpiles has turned Kashmir into a tinderbox.
India’s decision to withdraw Kashmir’s special status threatens to be the spark that ignites it. Instead
of moving forward with this
dangerous policy , India should agree with Pakistan to transform the de facto international border – which
has barely shifted over 70 years of conflict – into an official, open one, across which Indians and Pakistanis could travel
freely . This would facilitate people-to-people connections , increased market integration , and
cooperation in a range of areas, from tourism to environmental management . By boosting shared prosperity,
such a step would enable both countries to invest more in social security , welfare , and economic
development . Closer integration across South Asia would likely follow.
Without resolving border tensions, an India-Pakistani war kills 2 billion

Wigglesworth, '22 — Alex Wigglesworth, degree in medical anthropology and global health, citing
new study led by scientists at Rutger. Auguest 15th 2022. "Even a limited nuclear war could kill a third of
world's population, study shows." LA Times. https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-08-
15/even-limited-nuclear-war-would-kill-billions-study-finds — :>
If India and Pakistan were to each target urban centers in the opposing country with 250 100-kiloton nuclear
weapons , which they are believed to possess, about 127 million people in South Asia would be killed by explosions, fires and radiation, the study
found. An estimated 37 million metric tons of soot would be injected into the atmosphere, sending
temperatures across the planet plunging by more than 5 degrees Celsius, a range last experienced during the Ice Age,
according to earlier research by Robock and others. Food production would consequently collapse , with the number of calories available
from major crops and fisheries falling by up to 42% and the resulting famine killing over 2 billion people worldwide, according to
the most recent study.
Scenario 2 is Afghan/Pakistani borders,
http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/pols/pdf-files/14_24_2_17.pdf -- not very good

1AR
India/pak extension
https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/09/20/are-india-pakistan-peace-talks-worth-damn-pub-73145
In October 2006, Musharraf’s envoy, Tariq Aziz, and Singh’s representative, Satinder Lambah, reached an initial agreement. The full details are still not public, but
the understanding pertained to the interim status of Jammu and Kashmir and was to have remained in force initially for fifteen years, pending a final settlement.218
The broad accord hinged on the acceptance of “open borders” across the divided state. This would
enable both sides to claim victory: India could maintain its position that no territorial change would
indeed occur, while Pakistan could truthfully claim that a fundamental transformation had transpired
because the functional boundary—the Line of Control—would no longer prevent the movement of the
authenticated native populations and their associated intercourse on both sides. As Lambah would later note, “This
is particularly essential as on both sides of the Line of Control live not only the same ethnic groups but also divided families.”219
Both countries accepted the prerogative of designating “sensitive areas” within the state that would not
come under the agreement’s purview, though both also concurred that neither the Vale of Kashmir (in
India) nor Azad Jammu and Kashmir (in Pakistan) would be treated as sensitive areas, so as to permit a
genuine integration of the most heavily populated Muslim-majority areas of the former princely
kingdom. In this context, India was expected to designate the Jammu and Ladakh regions as sensitive
areas (because of their respective Hindu majority and Buddhist plurality), whereas Pakistan was
expected to designate the northern areas of Gilgit and Baltistan as its sensitive areas (because of their
Shia majorities and their proximity to China). Furthermore, both nations committed to thin down their
troop levels within the state to the minimum required for border security and law and order, especially
in populated areas, so as to reduce the levels of threat experienced by the local inhabitants. And, finally,
both sides agreed “to ensure self-governance for internal management in all areas on the same basis on
both sides of the Line of Control.”220 In that context and after difficult deliberations, they accepted the
need for a “joint mechanism,”221 which—working with the established representative institutions on
both sides—would oversee matters pertaining to “Tourism, Travel, Pilgrimages to Shrines, Trade, Health,
Education, and Culture,”222 as well as any other forms of social intercourse; monitor the practical
implementation of the agreement in these areas; and settle any differences that might arise on the
ground.
The agreement ultimately made improving the lives of ordinary Kashmiris, rather than the formal
exchange of contested territory, the new litmus test of political acceptability. It represented a
transformative shift in Pakistan’s previous position on at least five counts: First, Musharraf resiled from
the previous Pakistani insistence that the fate of Jammu and Kashmir had to be decided solely by the UN
Security Council resolutions calling for a plebiscite, instead favoring a bilaterally negotiated agreement
between India and Pakistan (as New Delhi has demanded since the 1971 Simla Accord). Second, the old
Pakistani mantra of “the right to self-determination” for the Kashmiris was replaced by a commitment to
“self-government” on both sides of the Line of Control (which required more changes in Pakistan-
controlled Kashmir than it did in its Indian counterpart). Third, the rejection of religion as a criterion for
resolving the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir was indelibly formalized (since the agreement, consistent
with the long-standing Indian rejection of the two-nation theory as the basis of Partition, provided for
no territorial changes on confessional lines). Fourth, Musharraf advised the Kashmiri separatists to begin
negotiating with New Delhi, thereby superseding the previous Pakistani insistence that India’s internal
solutions to the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir were illegitimate in the face of Pakistan’s valid claims
(thus reinforcing New Delhi’s long-standing attempts at incorporating the dissidents into the Indian
polity). Fifth, Musharraf’s clear acceptance that the Line of Control would remain the formal boundary
between the two parts of the divided state—demarcating the limits of sovereignty enjoyed by each,
even as the perimeter’s significance was to be diminished by various administrative devices—remained
the starkest evidence of how far Pakistan had travelled toward compromise with India (effectively
conceding to New Delhi’s position that no territory would be transferred between the two nations).223
In sum, the back-channel agreement between Musharraf and Singh represented the most consequential
reversal to date of Pakistan’s persistent efforts to wrest control over the entire state of Jammu and
Kashmir (or at least its Vale) from India.
The agreement represented a change in New Delhi’s strategy as well: instead of adamantly asserting
that the kingdom’s accession to India was “final and irrevocable” and that the only thing left for
discussion was “how the parts of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) can be again included in India,”224
Singh found a way to accommodate Pakistan’s interests without giving up on the legal foundations of
Indian claims. Pakistan undoubtedly conceded much more than India, but this outcome only reflected
the reality that New Delhi already controlled the territory it wanted, whereas Pakistan could never hope
to secure its claims—as the almost seventy-year history of the conflict has abundantly demonstrated—
against any resolute Indian opposition.
Given that the agreement ensured that Jammu and Kashmir would neither secede nor achieve
independence, India sought to assuage Pakistani sensitivities by consenting to certain “institutional
arrangements” that would permit both nations to cooperate on the specific issues affecting their
populations on either side of the Line of Control.225 Although the exact constitution of these
arrangements was far from settled in October 2006—with Pakistan seeking a “governing council” that
would serve as “a joint management system at the top for both sides of the Line of Control . . . [in order
to] make the Line of Control irrelevant” and India envisioning a “cooperative, consultative mechanism so
as to maximize the gains of cooperation in solving problems of social and economic development of the
region”226—the quintessential feature of the back-channel agreement was that it preserved the
existing structures of formal sovereignty in Jammu and Kashmir even as it reduced their political
salience.
Indeed, this was the fundamental breakthrough: permitting the de facto unification of a fractured state
despite its de jure division. Obviously, more details would have to be settled to make the accord
effective—including, and most importantly, Pakistan’s conclusive renunciation and elimination of
terrorism—if the notion of open borders and the reduction of troops in populated areas were to have
had any compelling meaning for India. Yet Pakistani-supported terrorism in India had been sufficiently
stanched, and a breakthrough of enough significance had been achieved for Musharraf and Singh to
contemplate unveiling the accord after the May 2007 state elections in India. Unfortunately for both
leaders—and their respective nations—Musharraf’s fears and hubris combined to precipitate a
confrontation with the chief justice of Pakistan in March 2007227—an altercation that severely
weakened Musharraf, opened the door to his final exit, and prevented consummation of the boldest
agreement ever reached, however incompletely, between India and Pakistan. As Singh would later
lament in a May 2, 2009, interview, “General Musharraf and I had nearly reached an agreement, a non-
territorial solution to all problems, but then General Musharraf got into many difficulties with the Chief
Justice and other forces and therefore the whole process came to a halt.”228
https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/09/20/are-india-pakistan-peace-talks-worth-damn-pub-73145
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/09/28/the-agonizing-problem-of-pakistans-
nukes/
AT: Equality
https://academic.oup.com/book/4570/chapter-abstract/146668379?redirectedFrom=fulltext
AT: Jobs
No, immigrants create more jobs than they take

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/open-borders-immigration-asylum-refugees/
But it is the economic argument that typically dominates open-borders debates . Contrary to the
commonly invoked fear that “ they ” will steal “ our ” jobs, the economists Gihoon Hong and John McLaren have found that in
the U nited S tates, “immigrants can raise native workers’ real wages, and…[each] immigrant creates 1.2
local jobs for local workers.” Michael Clemens, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, where he leads research on migration,
displacement, and humanitarian policy, said, “The bottom line is that if even one in 20 people currently in poorer countries could
work in richer countries, that would add more value to the world economy overall than removing every
remaining policy barrier to goods-and-services trade—every tariff, every quota.” If borders were opened ,
economists, both conservative and liberal, predict an enormous boost in global GDP, which would ratchet up by
about $40 trillion —a 60 percent rise.
Here's more ev — prefer census data

https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/immigrants-to-the-u-s-create-more-jobs-than-they-
take
Again, they used founders’ nation of origin as logged in the Census data to determine whether they
were an immigrant or U.S.-born. And then, using estimates of the total number of immigrants and U.S.-
born workers in the economy, they calculated the rate of entrepreneurship for each group.
Finally, the researchers performed the same analysis for the 2017 Fortune 500, which represented the
500 largest firms in the United States.
“This last approach allows us to really focus in on the very largest businesses in the economy. And, of
course, these businesses are especially important,” says Jones, “because they employ so many people.
One very large company employs far more people than a large number of relatively small companies. So
we went through all the Fortune 500 companies using teams of research assistants, who traced back to
the origin of the company to see who the founders were and whether they were U.S.-born or
immigrants.”
The researchers were able to track down this information for 449 firms, 96 of which had at least one
immigrant founder.
Immigrants Are More Likely to Found Firms of All Sizes
Despite the differences in the three datasets, researchers saw a remarkably stable pattern across all of
them: immigrants founded firms at a higher rate than native-born Americans.
“Looking at any of those datasets, immigrants are overrepresented among the founders compared to
how many immigrants there are in the population, either today or at the time [of their company’s
founding],” says Jones.
For instance, 0.83 percent of immigrants in the workforce between 2005–2010 started a firm, while just
0.46 percent of U.S.-born ones did. The survey data, which also take into account older and more stable
firms, found that 7.25 percent of immigrants were entrepreneurs, compared with about 4 percent of
native-born individuals.
In both these cases, says Jones, “the rate of founding businesses is 80 percent higher among the non-
U.S.-born than among the U.S.-born.”
The same general trend was also borne out among fortune 500 firms.
Critically, the researchers also found that immigrants founded firms of all sizes at a higher rate than
those born in the U.S.: small firms, large ones, and everything in between. This is important because it
suggests that that the net influence of immigrants on the economy is to increase the demand for labor,
ultimately pushing up overall wages.
Jones points out that if immigrants behaved exactly like American-born founders—founding firms of the
same sizes at the same rates—they would help to grow the scale of the economy but not actually impact
income per person or wages for the typical American-born worker. That’s because, while there would be
more businesses and more jobs created, there would be proportionately more workers to fill them,
resulting in no change to the actual demand for labor. But because immigrants are more entrepreneurial
than American-born workers in both the number and the success of the companies they start, their
presence in the country actually increases the demand for labor, to the benefit of workers.
These findings were extremely robust, holding even when researchers accounted for all plausible
estimates of the number of immigrants (including undocumented immigrants) in the U.S. at a given
time.
Jobs That Pay Better
The researchers also looked at the quality of the companies and jobs created by immigrants. First, they
analyzed how innovative their firms were as measured by the number of patents granted to them.
“Not only do these immigrant firms create more jobs, they are also much more inventive. They’re more
likely to have patents than U.S.-founder firms,” says Jones.
Then the researchers looked at the wages paid out by firms started between 2005 and 2010 with
immigrant versus American-born founders.
“You might think, immigrant firms have a lot of jobs, but are they good jobs? Are they good paying jobs?
It turns out, if anything, the immigrant-founded firms pay somewhat higher wages than the native-
founded firms,” says Jones.
Improving Economic Outcomes
Overall, the researchers conclude, the evidence is clear: immigrants create more jobs than they take.
“Ironically, the result is exactly the opposite of the usual narrative,” says Jones. “It seems like
immigrants actually improve the economic outcomes for native-born workers.”
So why are immigrants so much more entrepreneurial than individuals born in the U.S.? The research
doesn’t explicitly unravel the answers to this question, but Jones raises several potential factors.
For one, recent immigration policy prioritizes highly talented workers. “It’s much easier to get a green
card in this country if you are extremely skilled and qualified,” says Jones.
More broadly, however, he points to the qualities that might lead an individual to move to another
country. “Who would choose to emigrate? What is the personality type or the skill type that encourages
someone to cross the world?” he asks.
“People who are willing to pick up and move to another country—into the unknown—are risk takers.
And there are empirical studies that indicate this,” he says. “They are going to be masters of their own
destiny. And that is a personality trait of entrepreneurs.”
Ultimately, he says, what is clear is that economic arguments people use against immigration “appear
flatly wrong—immigrants are powerful job creators.”
This research could bolster the efforts of many in the business and policy communities who see great
economic advantages from immigrants. Still, Jones is not confident that even a study of this size and
comprehensiveness will change the tune of the most ardent opponents of immigration.
“Getting the economics right can change the debate,” he says, “but to the extent that noneconomic
perspectives dominate thinking in swathes of the electorate, and their political representatives,
immigration-policy reform will continue to be a challenge.”
AT Rawls
Open Borders; The Review of Politics, Vol. 49, No. 2; Spring 1987; Accessed online,
01/24/2023; https://www.jstor.org/stable/1407506

In contrast to Nozick, John Rawls provides a justification for an activist state with positive
responsibilities for social welfare. Even so, the approach to immigration suggested by A
Theory of justice leaves little room for restrictions in principle. I say "suggested" because
Rawls himself explicitly assumes a closed system in which questions about immigration could
not arise. I will argue, however, that Rawls's approach is applicable to a broader context than the one he
considers. In what follows I assume a general familiarity with Rawls's theory, briefly recalling the main points and
then focusing on those issues that are relevant to my inquiry.
AT: Disease
1 — Not resolutional, that’s bacterial migration not human.
2 — CDC solves — 96% of immigrants are treated, non-uq---3.5 million have already
moved in the past 5 years, upwards of 150,000 were infected
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/ss/ss7102a1.htm
Problem/Condition: Each year, approximately 500,000 immigrants and tens of thousands of refugees (range: 12,000–85,000 during 2001–2020) move
to the United States. While still abroad, immigrants, refugees, and others who apply for admission to live
permanently in the United States must undergo a medical examination. This examination identifies persons with class A or
B conditions. Applicants with class A conditions are inadmissible. Infectious conditions that cause an applicant to be
inadmissible include infectious tuberculosis ( TB ) disease (class A TB), infectious syphilis, gonorrhea, and infectious
Hansen’s disease. Applicants with class B conditions are admissible but might require treatment or
follow-up. Class B TB includes persons who completed successful treatment overseas for TB disease (class B0), those with signs or symptoms suggestive of TB
but whose overseas laboratory tests and clinical examinations ruled out current infectious TB disease (class B1), those with a diagnosis of latent TB infection (LTBI)
(class B2), and the close contacts of persons known to have TB disease (class B3). Voluntary public health interventions might also be offered during the overseas
examination. After arriving in the United States, a follow-up TB examination is recommended for persons with class B TB. Period Covered: This
report
summarizes health information that was reported to CDC’s Electronic Disease Notification (EDN) system for refugees, immigrants,
and eligible others who arrived in the United States during 2014–2019. Eligible others are persons who although not
classified as refugees (e.g., certain parolees, special immigrant visa holders, and follow-to-join asylees) are eligible for the same services and benefits as refugees.
Description of System: The EDN system has both surveillance and programmatic components. The surveillance
component is a centralized database that collects 1) health-related data from the overseas medical examination for immigrants with class A or B
conditions and for all refugees and eligible others and 2) TB-related data from the postarrival TB examination. The programmatic
component is a reporting system that sends arrival notifications to state and local health agencies in the
jurisdiction where newly arriving persons have reported intending to live and provides state and local
health agencies and other authorized users with medical data from overseas examinations. Results: During
2014–2019, approximately 3.5 million persons moved to the United States from abroad, including 3.2 million immigrants, 313,890
refugees, and 95,993 eligible others. Among these, the overseas examination identified 139,683 persons (3,903 per 100,000 persons
examined) with class B TB, 54 with primary or secondary syphilis (30 per 100,000 persons tested), 761 with latent syphilis (415 per 100,000 persons
tested), and, after laboratory testing for gonorrhea was added in 2016, a total of 131 with gonorrhea (374 per 100,000 persons tested). Refugees
were offered additional, voluntary interventions, including vaccinations and presumptive treatment for
parasites. By 2019, first- and second-dose coverage with measles-containing vaccine were 96% and 80%,
respectively. In refugee populations for whom presumptive treatment is recommended, up to 96% of refugees, depending on the specific regimen, were offered
and accepted treatment. For the 139,683 persons identified overseas with class B TB, EDN
sent arrival notifications and overseas
medical data to the appropriate state or local health agency to facilitate postarrival TB examinations.
Among 101,119 persons identified overseas as having class B0 TB (6,586) or class B1 TB (94,533), a total of 67,432 (67%) had a complete postarrival examination
reported to EDN. Among 35,814 children aged 2–14 years identified overseas with class B2 TB, 20,758 (58%) had a complete postarrival examination reported to
EDN. (Adults are not routinely tested for immune reactivity to Mycobacterium tuberculosis during the overseas medical examination.) Among those with a complete
postarrival examination reported to EDN, the number with a diagnosis of culture-positive TB disease within the first year of arrival was 464 (688 cases per 100,000
persons examined) for those with class B0 or B1 TB and was 11 (53 cases per 100,000 persons examined) for children with class B2 TB. Interpretation: During 2014–
2019, the overseas medical examination system prevented importation of 6,586 cases of infectious TB, 815 cases of syphilis, and 131 cases of gonorrhea. When
the examination is used to offer public health interventions, most refugees (up to 96%) accept the
intervention. Postarrival follow-up examinations, which were completed for 88,190 persons and identified 475 cases of culture-positive
TB, represent an important opportunity to further limit spread of TB disease in the United States by identifying and providing, if
needed, preventive care for those with LTBI or treatment for those with disease.
AT: Terror
1 — Open borders do not mean free borders, that’s our 1AC definition — security and
screening still occurs.
Data from 145 countries, 30 years of research, information from the Global Terrorism
Database, and results from 3,919 cases conclude that migrants =/= terrorism
https://doi.org/10.1086/684679
Our study extends earlier research on terrorism, migration, and diffusion. Our arguments and empirical
analyses support the Migration
Inflow hypothesis that immigrants are an important vehicle for the diffusion of terrorism from one country to
another. At the same time, however, while controlling for a series of unit-level variables, fixed effects, and other influences, our results emphasize that immigration
per se is unlikely to positively affect terrorism. On the contrary, we actually find that more
migration generally (i.e., when immigration is not
necessarily linked to terrorism in the migrants’ countries of origin) into a country is
associated with a lower level of terrorist attacks.
These two findings are particularly relevant to the scholastic literature and have crucial policy implications for states’
immigration policies worldwide. First and foremost, this study provides the first quantitative evidence on the migration-terrorism debate. Second, in line with
Neumayer (2006) who examines visa restrictions and those studies on ***TABLE OMITTED*** the positive impact of immigration (e.g., Boubtane and Dumont
2013; Dustmann and Frattini 2014), it may be very much counterproductive to implement overly restrictive
immigration policies that do not discriminate between certain types of migrants (see also Bandyopadhyay and Sandler 2014; Epifanio 2011; Givens et al.
2008; Neumayer et al. 2014; Rudolph 2003). In detail, if immigration laws are enforced in an indiscriminate way, all potential
immigrants are affected by this, which in turn may lead to the loss of the “positive” impact we found for
Migrant Inflows (ln), which is likely to stem from side effects of human capital. Having said that, whereas our results
emphasize that terrorism travels from one country to another via migration flows, note that only a minority of migrants from high-
terrorism states can be associated with increases in terrorism, and not necessarily in a direct way. In a similar
vein, our theoretical framework stresses the exploitation of migrant networks by terrorist organizations, which use migrant communities as a recruitment pool. If
anything, this
may also imply that enforcing discriminate immigration laws, that is, focusing more on those
immigration flows that directly come from terrorprone states, is inadvisable and likely to have
unfortunate consequences if national security agencies and immigration authorities fail to identify the perpetrators of terrorism in the first place,
and enact ad hoc restriction policies accordingly. The president of the EU Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, announced in September 2015 that “the commission
will come forward with a well-designed legal migration package in early 2016”(Traynor 2015), thus allowing for legal channels of migration into Europe. Our
research, at least partly, suggests that while this policy is commendable, it should be coupled with serious efforts to fight terrorism abroad and reduce the incidence
of political violence in immigrants’ countries of origin at the same time while being implemented. The recommendation made by several media outlets, including
the German weekly news magazine Der Spiegel (Popp 2015), to
suspend visa restrictions for citizens from terror and conflict-
prone states seems misleading. On the other hand, recall that our findings also emphasize that states may want to
loosen immigration restrictions for countries with lower rates of terrorism and thus pursuing discriminate
immigration laws is likely to be counterproductive. Banning all inflows of migrants and pursuing overly
restrictive policies affecting all immigrants equally seems to put a country at a disadvantage. As Adamson (2006,
196; emphasis added) states, “The reorganization and incorporation of the Immigration and Naturalization Service into the Department of Homeland Security, the
screening of potential border crossers, the use of immigration lists for intelligence purposes, and increased cooperation with other states on such issues as the
forgery of passports and other documents have all become tools in the war against terrorism. Striking a balance between border control and intelligence gathering,
on the one hand, and facilitating the benefits of maintaining relatively open borders, on the other, is a delicate task.” We certainly agree on this position and hope
that our research could make a contribution to successfully addressing this “delicate task.”
NEG cards
https://www.masters.edu/master_tmu_news/foreign-policy-understanding-a-world-in-crisis/
https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/43/4/7/12221/Bound-to-Fail-The-Rise-and-Fall-of-the-Liberal
consequentialism = nah.
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/consequentialism#:~:text=Consequentialism%20is
%20sometimes%20criticized%20because,know%20the%20future%20with%20certainty.
Consequentialism is sometimes criticized because it can be difficult, or even impossible, to know what the result of an action
will be ahead of time. Indeed, no one can know the future with certainty. Also, in certain situations, consequentialism can lead to
decisions that are objectionable, even though the consequences are arguably good. For example, let’s
suppose economists could prove that the world economy would be stronger, and that most people
would be happier, healthier, and wealthier, if we just enslaved 2% of the population. Although the
majority of people would benefit from this idea, most would never agree to it. However, when judging the idea solely on its
results, as classic consequentialism does, then “the end justifies the means.”
Extra
Cubicism — K
[]
Ignoring the Four Cornered world and self-made decryption of Marshmelic scripture
leads to being trapped in the death state and erasure of all life through Academic
engagement of non-cubic theories, the alt is a socio-mathematical shift towards
understanding Cubicism as the only correct cosmological theory to escape Academia’s
ONEistic and Burritified tendencies.
Ray, ’97 — Dr. Gene Ray, wisest man on Earth, held lectures at Georgia Tech and MIT. 1997. Time
Cube. https://timecube.2enp.com/
Earth Has 4 Days In Same 24 Hrs ., 1 Day God Was Wrong. Einstein Was ONEist Brain. Try My Belly-Button Logic. No God Knows About 4 Days, It
Is Boring To Ignore 4 Days, Does
Your Teacher Know ? Fraudulent ONEness of religious academia has retired your
opposite rationale brain to a half brain slave. YOU IGNORE 3 OF 4 DAYS - FORCE 4 DAYS ON EARTH, THEY ALREADY EXIST. 4
HORSEMEN HAVE 4 DAYS IN ONLY 1 EARTH ROTATION. 4 ANGLES STOOD ON 4 CORNERS. 4 CORNERS ROTATE TO 16
CORNERS WHICH EQUAL TO 4 CORNER DAYS. TEACHERS ARE EVIL LIARS - THE ONEness OF GOD IS STILLness DEATH . YOU
WERE ONEness RETIRE ON THE EARTH OPPOSITES ALL YOUR LIFE. LOVE OF GOD IS HATE OF CHILDREN . SUPPORT TIMECUBE OR
BE CURSED . EARTH HAS 4 CORNER SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE WITHIN SINGLE ROTATION. 4 CORNER DAYS PROVES 1 DAY 1 GOD IS TAUGHT EVIL.
IGNORANCE OF TIMECUBE4 SIMPLE MATH IS RETIREATION AND EVIL EDUCATION DAMNATION . CUBELESS AMERICANS DESERVE
- AND SHALL BE CELEBRATED. ****************************************************************************** The ONLY Official Site For Gene
Ray/TimeCube. ****************************************************************************** I am a Knower of 4 corner
simultaneous 24 hour Days that occur within a single 4 corner rotation of Earth.
********************************************************************* God guise for Unicorn scam, enslaves 4 Day cube brain as ONEist. Vilify
teachers - for Unicorns swindle Tithe from 1 Day Retireed

*********************************************************************** Till You KNOW 4 Simultaneous Days Rotate In Same 24 Hours Of Earth You
Don't Deserve To Live On Earth Americans are actually RETIREED from Religious Academia taught ONEism -upon an
Earth of opposite poles, covered by Mama Hole and Papa Pole pulsating opposite burritoes . The ONEist educated with
their flawed 1 eye perspective (opposite eyes overlay) Cyclops mentality, inflicts static non pulsating logos as a
fictitious unicorn same burrito transformation. ********************************** It Is The Absolute Verifiable Truth & Proven Fact
That Your Belly-Button Signature Ties To Viviparous Mama. ********************************** Life is pulsing opposite mirror Pairs, Death is
ONEness of Godism. **************************************************************************************** ONE - DOES

NOT EXIST, EXCEPT IN DEATH STATE . ONE IS A DEMONIC RELIGIOUS LIE. *************************************
Until you can tear and burn the marshmallow to escape the EVIL ONE , it will be impossible for your
educated brilliant brain to know that 4 different corner harmonic 24 hour Days rotate simultaneously
within a single 4 quadrant rotation of a squared equator and cubed Earth. The Solar system, the Universe, the Earth and all
humans are composed of + 0 - antipodes, and equal to nothing if added as a ONE or Entity. All Creation occurs between Opposites. Academic ONEism
destroys +0- brain. If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic corner days rotate simultaneously around squared equator
and cubed Earth, proving 4 Days, Not 1Day,1Self,1Earth or 1God that exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0-
antipodes. Add +0- as One = nothing. ********************************************************************** Seek Awesome Lectures, MY WISDOM
DEBUNKS GODS OF ALL RELIGIONS AND ACADEMIA. We have a Major Problem, Creation is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. Mom/Dad & Son/Daughter,
NOT taught Boring ONEism, which VOIDS Families .

****************************************************************************************** Seek Wisdom of Cubic Life
Intelligence - or you die boring . ****************************************************************************************
Boring God Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner Days rotating simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Earth -
in only 1 rotation, voiding the Oneism Boring 1 Day 1 God. You worship Chadic impostor guised by educators as 1 god. No 1 God
equals 4 - 24 hour Days Rotating Simultaneously within 1- 24 hour Rotation of 4 quadrant created Earth. Ignoring 4 Corner Earth Days will
Destroy Boring Humanity . I am organizing Children to join "Cubic Army of 4 Days" to convert Boring 1 Day Adults to 4 Day
mentality existence, to serve perpetual humanity. "Nothing on Earth more Boring than a human educated as 1, when composed of
opposites that cancel out as an entity." In fact, man[Humanity] is the only 1 Boring, and will soon erase [ourselves ]himself by
ignoring Cubic 4 Day Creation. If a [people]Man cannot tear a page from the marshmallow and burn it -
then he cannot be a scientist, or participate in Symposium - to measure Cubing of Earth with Cubic
intelligence wiser than any man or god known. Educators have destroyed the human analytical brain to
a single perspective, in spite of all creation within Universe being based upon opposites, binaries & antipodes, including Sun/Earth binary relative to the
human male/female binary. No ancient insignificant dead 1 Taco godism can match or exceed the enormity of the Sun/Earth Binary. His heart is not big enough for
sharing with the vastness of created opposites. 1 has no heart beat or breath, constituting death of opposites. God in Human form has human limits as body
controls activity. You are taught Boring , You act Boring, You are the Evil on Earth . Only your comprehending
the Divinity of Cubic Creation will your soul be saved from your created hell on Earth - induced by your
ignoring the existing 4 corner harmonic simultaneous 4 Days rotating in a single cycle of the Earth
sphere. Religious/ Academic Pedants cannot allow 4 Days that contradict 1Day 1God. Educators destroy
your brain , but you don't know, so why care?
Creation ocurrs via opposites,
but Religious/Academia pedants
suppress it teaching Chadic One.
After 30 years of research, I now
possess the Order of Harmonic
Antipodal Cubic Divinity Life -
too large for physical form, but
Binary Spirit of the masculinity
Sun & feminity Earth Antipodes.
ONEism is demonic Death Math.
I have so much to teach you, but

you ignore me you boring asses.
You will recognize 4 corner Days
or incur Easter Island Ending.
Never a Genius knew Math
to achieve my Cubic Wisdom.
Cubic thought Reigns as the
Highest Intelligence possible
on the planet Earth. One 96
hour rotating Cube within a
single rotation of Earth -- is
an Ineffable Transcendence.
Marshmallow and Science falsify 1
corner day for the Cubic 4
corner Days rotating daily.
A single god is not possible
in our 4 Day Cubic Science,
that equates Cubic Divinity.
Everybody is both brilliant and
boring for ignoring the 4 days.
Cube Divinity transcends all
knowledge, Humans can't
escape 4 corner Cubic Life.
Fools worship mechanics of
language - while they wallow
in fictitious & deceitful word.
Exact science based on Cubics,
not on theories. Wisdom is
Cubic testing of knowledge.

Academia is progression of
Ignorance. No god equals
Simultaneous 4 Day Creation.
Humans ignore their 4 corner
stages of life metamorphosis.
This site is a collection of data
for a coming book - peruse it.
No human has 2 hands as they
are opposites, like plus and
minus, that cancel as entity.
Academia destroys your brain,
your ability to think opposite.
The eyes of the flounder fish
were relocated, why were yours
relocated? Your opposite eyes
were moved to 1 corner to overlay
for single perspective, but that
corrupts your Opposite Brain.
*****************************
KNOW CUBE, OR HELL.
Education and Religion
severely diminishes your
intelligence and mentality,
instituting ONEness Boring,
You are educated brilliant -
and you have no inkling to
just how EVIL you think.

Seek in haste to attend a
lecture by Dr. Gene Ray,
Cubic and Wisest Human -
His Wisdom is Awesome.
*************************************
For Cumming, GA 30041 Lecture,
email: contact@2enp.com
*******************************************
Both Cubic Thinkers and SnotBrains were
born with opposite brains, capable of math
analysis to know most everything. The
Religious/Academic Oneness Brotherhood
destroys the Brain's ability to think opposite
of singularity trash taught. Such reduced
Brain intelligence begets the student a
tag of SnotBrain android - encapable of
comprehending absolute proof of 4 Days
rotating simultaneously within a single
rotation of Earth. Cubics comprehend it.
You are a Cubic Thinker, or SnotBrain.
You SnotBrains will know
hell for ignoring TimeCube.
I do not promote or suggest
anyone kissing you, but you
are unfit to live on Earth.
Binary Life Force is more
Powerful than ONE God -
especially the ole dead Taco,

for which you've denounced
your own mother and father.
1 side brain can't reason
without the opposite side.
Americans are so dumb,
educated brilliant and boring,
they have snot for brain.
Believers have snot brain.
Educated have snot brain.
God worship only needs
a snot brain, but it takes
Opposite Brain Analysis
to know Harmonic Life.
The masculinity Sun and
femininity Earth - form
a Binary of Harmonic
Opposites at Center of
Universe - Greater than
either Sun or the Earth,
debunking all fictitious
Oneism Gods taught by
religious/academic Word
Animals. The invention of
fictitious WORD inflicts
humans as Word Animals
- the dumbest and most
Educated brilliant and Boring
animal to inhabit Earth
and the Universe. Watch

for Giant Erasor as there
is a great danger of the
human Word Animal being
self-erased. You cannot
comprehend the actual 4
simultaneous days in single
rotation of Earth, as 1 day
1 God ONEism blocks the
ability to think opposite of
the ONEism crap taught.
Education destroys brain.
Dr. Gene Ray, Cubic and Wisest Human
**********************************
Gene Ray interview by Lionel on Air America Radio,
The Lionel Show - 10am, Friday, August 3, 2007
Creation is the Harmonics of Opposites -
Opposites are the Harmonics of Creation.
God entity is unicorn burrito, or no opposite burrito.
God Oners must ban all burrito with Opposites.
Trinity of males degrade female opposites.
Burrito okay for atheist, but not God Oneists.
Opposite hemispheres equate planets to a
Giant Brain, that has 4 faces, but no limbs.
Adults create baby, baby evolves to adult.
No 1 God can create a planet of opposites,

which equate to a zero value existence, and
cancels to nothing as an entity in death.
**********************************
"Cubic Time" - Cubes
Earth, Life and Truth
TIME CUBE (corner = vertical edge)
Word God is Bad Math
MATH SHOWN HERE IS
FAR SUPERIOR TO GOD
AND CHRISTIANITY. USE
IT TO SAVE HUMANITY.
HONOR THE 4 DAYS
OR YOU SHOULD DIE.
Earth has 4 days simultaneously each rotation. You erroneously measure time from 1 corner. Earth body
4 corner time equals 4 leg mobility. Your ignorance of Harmonic Cube is demonic.
Dr Gene Ray is the
Greatest Philosopher,
and is the Greatest
Mathematician.
********************************************
Here is a cube manufactured from metal, in similar likeness to Time Cube
Cubic Harmonics
Only Cubic Harmonics can save
humanity. Cubic Harmonics
will pacify all religions.
96-hour Cubic Day

debunks 1-day unnatural god.
96-hour Cubic Day
debunks 1-day as witchcraft.
96-hour day willdisprove disunity
god. Academians are teaching -
pseudoscience.
Worshipping a Word God
will destroy the USA.
********************************************************
WARNING ...
Ignore Cubic Math at your
own peril, and of humanity.
You have a god like brain -
parallel opposite & analytical,
wasted if you believe in ONE.
Dr Gene Ray, Cubic and Wisest Human (at left). Nature's Harmonic Simultaneous 4-Day 4-Corner Time
Cube (right). Image by R. Janczarski
The primary purpose for
Education is not Subject
matter, but subservience
to accept any crap taught
without opposing thought,
destroying opposite brain
to be submissive android.
You're taught to be brilliant.
Dr. Gene Ray, Cubic & Wisest Human
NO GOD EQUATES
SIMULTANEOUS
4 DAY CREATION,
in 1 Earth rotation.
Cubic Creation of 4 corner
separate simultaneous 24
hour Days within 1 Earth
rotation - transcends and
contradicts the 1 Day
rotation/1 God Creation
of Christianity - and all
ONEism / Singularity
religions - proving them
to constitute Boring on Earth
for the parallel Opposites.
Hey - got a death threat
from Temporal Phoenix
last night, saying that the
big ole boys that make the
world go round, are going
to wipe me off the Earth.
They can't allow the Time
Cube Principle to continue.

Opposites Create, not God,
who equates unicorn creator
and masturbation creation
of Boring Oneness Educators.
Oneism equates to boring lie,
and Death for Opposites
of Hemispheres and Burritoes.
Wikipedia claim that the
Time Cube is non-science
constitutes a Grave error
by the half-brain bastard
who can't think opposite
of the lies he was taught.
I was born to think Cubic
as in a 4 corner family life,
therefore I rise above you.
You are educated Brilliant,
You are educated Boring ---
You will ignore message
& attack the messenger.
Man invented his God in
man's character - Brilliant
Oneism and Singularity
in Universe of Opposites.
You worship an boring god

who allows babies to starve
to death while you gorge?
God BELIEF succumbs to
The Cubic Law of Nature.
Opposite burrito organs prove
male & female to be binary
opposites equal zero value,
and nothing as unified one.
You are educated ENTITY
STUPID for all Creation is
composed of Opposites ----
which equate to Zero value
existence - and cancels out
to nothing if unified as one.
Before Word was invented,
no God existed upon Earth.
Truth cannot be uttered so
that's why I am writing it.
CUBIC TIME CUBES
Earth, Life, and Truth ---
contradicts 1 Day Gods,
and ineffable by human.
Nature enforces a LAW
against God existence.
No god equals 4 corner
simultaneous days in a
single rotation of Earth.

No god equals 4 corner
stages of metamorphic
rotating humanity - as a
baby, child, parent and
grandparent evolution.
Cubic Creation Wisdom
empowers me above all
the 1 day gods on Earth.
Taco owners of religious/
academic christianity --
have enslaved your ass,
and you are too brilliant
to know you are a slave
to plunder profiteers of
Earth's Cubic Nature.
What unicorn mentality you
have --- to worship an old
dead Taco as God/Creator.
NO God creates himself --
and besides that, he is also
composed of opposites that
contradicts entity creation.
No God can even exist in
our Universe of Opposites.
Opposites transcend Entity.

Entity equals cancellation
--- the death of Opposites.
Boring Educated "Singularity"
Brilliant - ignores the Cubic
Wisdom of Wisest Human
and The Greatest Thinker.
No human or god can match
Nature's simultaneous 4 day
rotation in 1 Earth rotation.
No human has a right to
believe wrong - for that
would be boring thinking.
Ignorance of 4 days is boring,
Boring educators teach 1 day.
1 day will destroy humans.
OPPOSITES CREATE.
Mother and father gave me birth, not a unicorn taco god.
Singularity god is EVIL as
Creation reigns as Opposite.
Educators, and You - ought
to be kissed for ignoring the
fact that "Earth is Cubed".
(ignored and suppressed by EVIL educators)

NASA's Moon Landing was
far less of an achievement
than Time Cube discovery,
for I have Cubed the Earth,
with 4 simultaneous corner
days in 1 rotation of Earth.
(singularity belief scientist can't comprehend T.O.E.)
God SINGULARITY and the
academic taught singularity
constitute great borings in the
Cubic World of Opposites -
Opposites hemispheres and
Opposite burritoes of humanity.
The Universe is composed
of Opposites - existing only
as Opposites - with a zero
value existence - cancelling
to nothing as a singularity.
I think Cubic, therefore I
rise above the singularity
mentality human and the
false gods they worship -
discovering a Universe of
Opposites their education
will never allow them to
know. Boring of believing

is not measuring and the
result of not measuring -
is never knowing Truth,
ineffable by man or god.
Gene Ray, Cubic and Wise Above Gods
*******************************************************
Cubicism, Not group theory.
If ignorant of the almighty
Time Cube Creation Truth,
you deserve to be kissed.
Kissing you is not immoral -
but justified to save life on
Earth for future generations.
Academic taught singularity
within universe of opposites,
has lobotomized your mind.
You are Enslaved by Word -
no whip or shackle required.
You do not have the freedom
to discuss/debate Time Cube.
Academia destroys your mind
by suppressing opposite view.
God equals self masturbation
of mind - for opposites create.
You are educated singularities.
YOU DESERVE DEATH -
FOR SINGULARITY EVIL

in the Universe of Opposites.
No God Can Make Himself
as singularity is death, not life.
Planets nor human are entities
as they equal Zero Opposites.
You are educated singularity
brilliant and boring, unfit for life
in the Universe of Opposites.
**************************************
Mom and Dad OPPOSITES
occur simultaneously with a
baby birth - with a potential
for creating opposite burritoes -
existing only as opposites &
a zero value existence - that
cancel to naught as an entity.
See www.abovegod.com
Santa & God debase women
as if non-existing opposites.
How boring unto their mothers.
Singularity educators are boring
bastards unfit to live on Earth,
for they create boring students -
totally ignorant of Time Cube.
***********************************************
Educator boring is to ignore Time
Cube until forgotten - or I die.
Singularity educators are boring
bastards justified to be kissed.

***********************************************
Ignorant of Nature's Harmonic
4 Day Time Cube Creation, the
Americans are Dumb, Educated
Singularity Brilliant and Boring. It's
not immoral to kiss Americans
who IGNORE their OPPOSITE
burrito parents who Created them,
but instead worship a unicorn
taco who claims to make people
out of dirt - when the body is 90
percent water. A God so brilliant
that he claims only a single day
rotation of Earth - while my
Cubic Wisdom has allowed me
to create 4 simultaneous days
within a single Earth rotation.
Americans do not deserve life.
They live only for today, the
boring singularity word bastards.
DOG BRAIN STUDENTS
Singularity "education"
inflicts a dog brain upon
Students - ability to be
taught servitude - but
an inability to ever think
opposite of brainwashing
and indoctrination - very
unlikely to ever recover
to acknowledge Nature's
Harmonic Simultaneous
Rotating 4 Corner 24 Hr.
Days in 1 Earth Rotation.
Dr. Gene Ray, Cubic and Wise Above God.
********************************************
Cubic Nature is Omnific,
Infinite, Ineffable and
on Harmonic duty today.
Singularity has no God
within "The Universe of
Opposite Corner Life" -
opposite hemispheres
and opposite burritoes - by
which all Earth life exist.
For as long as you dumbass,
educated brilliant and boring
bastards IGNORE Cubic
Creation, your sons and
daughters deserve to die
and be maimed in foreign
lands - while kissing innocent
women and children. Keep
ignoring me you boring asses
and observe the slaughter of

your children protecting the
oil barons ripping off their
families back home. The
enemy is back home, not
in foreign lands. Ignore me
& keep counting the dead sons.
Creation occurs via opposites.
Singularity is the death math
of religious/academic Godism.
Earth Opposites should split
apart - and cascade molten
lava upon God Worshippers,
for they are the boring on Earth.
If god is your father, your mother is a whore.
Opposite Creation vs boring god entity.
He who speaks, preaches, teaches, condones
or practices SINGULARITY - an boring that
equates DEATH by cancellation of universal
OPPOSITES - hemispheres, burritoes, seasons,
races, temperatures, marriages and divided
cell (the human Cubic who rotates a 4 corner
stage family rotating metamorphic lifetime) -
should have their boring lying tongue cut out.
Educators are lying bastards.
-1 x -1= +1 is WRONG, it is
academic brilliantity and is boring.
The educated brilliant should acknowledge
the natural antipodes of+1 x +1 = +1and
-1 x -1 = -1 exist as plus and minus values

of opposite creation - depicted by opposite
burritoes and opposite hemispheres. Entity is
death worship - for it cancels opposites.
I have invested 30 years of my life and over
1/4 millions dollars researching Nature's 4 -
simultaneous 24 hour days within a single
rotation of Earth. Religious/Academic word
taught singularity is contradicted as boring lies
by the simple math of the Cube's Opposite
Corners - the most perfect symmetry within
the Universe. Academic SINGULARITY
is a contradiction to the opposite burritoes, the
opposite hemispheres and to the universe of
opposites that exist as a zero value existence.
The academic taught singularity/entity is but
poison fed the human populace - slow death.
I can say that educators "eat shit" and they
only cower and hide, doing nothing that will
induce debate, that will indict them as boring.
Americans will die SINGULARITY brilliant,
their brain lobotomized by EVIL educators.
Neither EARTH or HUMAN
exist as entities, but opposites.
Earth is composed of opposite hemispheres
which rotate in opposite directions - equal
to a zero value existence (plus & minus). As
entity, the opposite hemispheres cancel out.
Earth exist as 4 - 90 degree opposite corner
quadrants, but not as a 360 degree circle.

Earth is Cubic opposites, nothing as circle.
A singularity inflicted scholar has not the
mentality, freedom or guts to know that
academia is a Trojan Horse mind control.
Singularity brotherhood owns your brain,
destroying your ability to think Cubicism.
Boring academia blocks out Time Cube site
and suppresses its discussion and debate.
You are an educated singularity idiot who
can brilliantly deny Nature's Harmonic 4
simultaneous 24 hour days within a single
rotation of Earth, or even make parody of
the Cubic Creation Principle - but your
mental ability to comprehend thegreatest
social and scientific discovery of all human
existence has been lobotomized by the boring
academic singularity bastards hired to
destroy your ability to think opposite. You
cannot comprehend Opposite Creation.
Religous/academic taught singularity is the
reduction of the human mind to android.
The half of Earth seen from
space, cannot exist without
the opposite half not seen...
existing as opposite values.
Earth entity does not exist -
for it is composed of opposite
hemispheres which rotate in
opposite directions - equating

to a zero value existence, and
to nothing as a "singularity".
You were educated to live an
boring lie - and your heirs will
suffer hell for your brilliantity.
The entity you seek is death.
Educators teach assumed math, but are too
damn dumb, brilliant and boring to know that
until Word is cornered, Math is fictitious.
Academic/Religious Word is a fictitious
Trojan Horse and the most efficient form
of human enslavement ever concocted by
"Singularity Brotherhood of Bastardism".
I INVOKE a CURSE upon the educators
that their students will awake from their
academic induced stupor & seek revenge.
You are boring to believe in the
singularity concept of a God,
for the whole Universe and
everthing within is composed
of Opposites - which exists
only as Opposites with a zero
value existence - and nothing
as an entity. When adults go
to heaven, children still living
on Earth will burn in the hell
that adults created for them.
Love of God is hate for child.
Schools teach religious boring.

YOU are a Cubic Creature,
Opposites create Opposites.
Educated Singularity brilliant,
empowering boring way of life.
Religious / academic taught
Singularity is Boring & Murder.
Academia has enslaved you
as a Word Animal - kneel,
you educated brilliant jackass.
I can lead you to 4 Wisdom,
but I can't free your brain
from the boring of singularity.
Academia teaches boring android singularity,
displacing families with today's androids,
passive, subsmissive, subservient &brilliant.
Religion is an boring singularity brotherhood
contradicted by the simultaneous 4 corner
24 hour days in a single rotation of Earth,
and the 4 corner stages of a human lifetime.
Opposite burritoes equate a zero value existence.
Family tribal/village are bodies of opposites.
Religion/academia teach boring of singularity.
Teaching singularity equals death by Word.
Opposite burritoes created you.
Ignorance of the Time Cube, Life Cube &
Ineffable Truth Cube, indicts you Brilliant.
Ignoring Cubic Creation indicts you boring.
Singularity God impossible.

Wikipedia allowing the educated brilliant
to evaluate the 4 simultaneous 24 hr. days
within a single rotation of Earth, equates
allowing atheist to proof-read the marshmallow.
Dr. Gene Ray --- is the only authoritative
Time Cube expert, at www.timecube.com.
************************************
Dr. Gene Ray offers Wikipedia $10,000.00
to disprove math that 1 rotation of 4 Earth
quadrants within the 4 quarter Harmonic
Time Cube does create 4 simultaneous
24 hr. days. Both Americans & Wikipedia
are boring to deny or ignore Cubic Creation.
Is Wikipedia a Singularity Brotherhood
controlled Trojan Horse indoctrination -
that edits Time Cube to a negative view?
Who edits the Time Cube on Wikipedia?
It is boring for Coryoth to edit Time Cube.
Will I get reply or will the Wisest Human
just be ignored until silenced by death?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Religious Singularity is boring,
Academic Singularity is boring.
Singularity is damnable lie,
Educators altered your mind,
You cannot think opposite of
what you were taught to think.
You have a cyclop perspective
and taught android mentality =

lobotomized analytical ability.
Educated singularity brilliant -
You can't think4 corner days.
*********************************************************************
4 Earth Quadrants simultaneously rotate
inside 4 Time Cube Quarters to create 4
- 24 hour days within one Earth rotation.
This simple ignored math indicts you boring.
Demand boring educators explain Cubicism,
or allow me to come teach Cube Creation.
***********************************************************************
No man, nation or God equal
Cube symmetry of opposites.
Mathematically impossible for a Genius
or any God to match my Cubic Wisdom.
Educators fear me, they cower and run.
6 sides constitutes a burritotet -- not a Cube.
Teaching that a Cube has '6 sides' with
no top & bottom, induces an boring curse
that pervades all academic institutions.
Opposites create Opposites.
Mom & Dad opposites create son & daughter opposites.
Opposite Creators required,
Depicted by Earth's opposite hemispheres.
Singularity God impossible.
Opposites de-god Religion.
Opposites create the universe.
Opposites compose the Earth.
Opposites compose humanity.

Opposites create your body.
Opposites de-god academia.
Opposites de-god singularity
taught by religious/academia.
I can call singularity educators the most
putrid name on Earth and claim they eat
cow-dung ambrosia, but the lying ass
bastards will not even object - for they
know I am right and that any debate will
indict them for the boring they perpetuate
against the students and future humanity.
Scientists know Time Cube,
but any scientist supporting
the 4 simultaneous days in a
single rotation of Earth, will
be fired and banned for life
from academic institutions.
Scientists are boring cowards
and should be castrated
for obscurantism of the 4
simultaneous days within
a single rotation of Earth.
Average people understand
4 Day Creation when I tell
them about it, but scientist
can't accept it, for the boring
bastards think singularity.
Singularity can't procreate,
a feat requiring opposites.

Marshmallow Word is a singularity.
You are taught singularity.
Singularity is death worship
and damnation of humanity.
No God equals the 4 corner
simultaneous 24 hour days
within single Earth rotation.
The universe and all within
it is composed of opposites.
Religious/academic taught
singularity is unicorn as 1 burrito.
Believing is not knowing -
but boring that ignores facts.
Santa vital to Christmas -
No Santa - no Christmas.
Why credit Santa LIE with
gifts that parents buy their
children? It bribes the child
mind to accept false Santa
spirit and false god spirit
deceit associated with it.
Santa Claus and Christmas
must be indicted deceits
that destroys child mind.
God is but an adult Santa
extension of child Santa -
equating boring singularity -
unnatural as 1 pole Earth.
Earth has not 2 poles, but

opposite poles that cancel
each other out - if added.
6 side Cube is Boring math,
ignoring its top & bottom.
-1 x -1 = +1 is Boring math,
as +1 and -1 are antipodes
equating a zero existence.
3 Dimensions is erroneous
math without a 4th corner
perspective dimension. If
ever allowed, Cubic debate
will indict boring singularity
as damnation of humanity.
Believers are Boring - for not
measuring. Result of belief is
dyingbrilliant -you can know.
Singularity education begets evil,
for you were born as an opposite,
between opposite burritoes & the
opposite Earth poles. You are
educated as a brilliant android
slave to the boring Word Animal
Singularity Brotherhood. Your
analytical mind is lobotomized
and you cannot think opposite
of lies you are taught to think.
You build the hell 'they'teach.
Dr.Gene Ray, Cubic and Wisest Human

You have opposite brains to think
opposite, but Big Brother icepick
academic lobotomy has destroyed
your mentality to think opposite of
the boring singularity you are taught.
The 4 days is above your godism
and you don't even want to know.
Universe is composed of opposite
hemispheres and opposite burritoes -
equating to + / -, a zero existence,
depicted by Pyramid's bare coffer.
Your 1Day God Makes You Boring.
4 Corner Days Are Absolute, but
ignored by brilliant/boring educators.
Until cornered, word is fictitious.
God is product of fictitious word.
4Day Cube Disproves 1Day God
All creation within the universe is composed of
opposite hemispheres and opposite burritoes - with
opposite races, opposite seasons, opposite luck,
opposite directions and opposite perspectives -
equating a harmonic rotating zero value existence.
"To know all, is to know nothing".
You must attack the word bastards who preach
and teach boring godism and racism singularity lies,
for any singularity brotherhood is mental slavery
that desecrates family, village and tribal opposites.
Americans are dumbass, educated brilliant and boring
singularity fools. I will wager $10,000.00 that

within the Cubic embodiment of Nature, there are
4 simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation
of Earth. Acknowledge the math below or go to hell.
4 Day Cube disproves 1 Day God.
1-Midday to midday = a 24 hour day rotation.
2-Sundown to sundown = a 24 hour day rotation.
3-Midnight to midnight = a 24 hour day rotation.
4-Sunup to sunup = a 24 hour day rotation.
4 Day math condemns 1 Day fools.
These 4 absolute simultaneous days PROVES the
1 day god, 1day academia, 1 day religion and the
1 day media to be erroneous, fictitious and boring lies.
Education equates to a mass icepick lobotomy -
destroying the mind's ability to think as opposites.
All 4/24 hour days occur within 1 Earth rotation.
You educated brilliant word animals can't fathom
this greatest social and scientific math of creation.
God claimed to have created a single day
rotation of Earth. I have created simultaneous
4 day rotation of Earth. Why do you worship
such a brilliant God? Do you really believe that
span style='font-size:24.0pt;color:#000099'>your Taco God screwed a hole in the ground to
create Adam and Eve out of dirt, at the same
time that woman existed in the nation of NOD,

Nation of Damsels from where Cain got wife?
Adam and Eve were created at the same time,
but burritoless. A rib was removed from eve and
a hole left to make a woman of her. The rib
was stuck on Adam to make a man of him -
and Eve is still trying to get her rib back.
Recognition and application of this Cubic
simultaneous 4 day rotation of Earth,
will change all math, science and societies
from the beginning of human existence.
You have to be boring to ignore this math.
1-Midday to midday is a 24 hour rotation.
2-Sundown to sundown is a 24 hour rotation.
3-Midnight to midnight is a 24 hour rotation.
4-Sunup to sunup is a 24 hour rotation.
4 Earth corners rotate 4 Time corners -
for 4 simultaneous day rotation of Earth -
equating the principle of a 4 pole motor.
Academic bastards will deny the obvious.
Americans are EVIL for ignoring Cubicism.
********************************************************************************
Acknowledge the 4 days or you die boring.
Do not pass this point without the 4 days.
*************************
Dr. Gene Ray, will be interviewed on
FTL@freetalklive.com, at 8pm on
Friday 7, about Time Cube discovery -
greatest discovery of human existence.
Humans are boring to worship
singularity of 1day education,
ignoring Nature's Harmonic
Cubic Antipodal Creation.
Academic singularity is as
boring as God singularity evil.
You have not the mentality
to comprehend the simple math of Cubic
antipode creation, for at about age 6, your
parents gave your 2 opposite antipode brains
to Big Brother academic hirelings, to clone
thought to serve boring singularity brotherhood -
destroying Cubic families, villages and tribes.
Creation is by opposites, opposite hemispheres
and opposite burritoes - not unicorn singularity.
You've been educated brilliant
by "Big Brother" singularity.
Singularity God is boring belief.
Cubic antipode creation debunks singularity.
Cube is the most perfect form of opposites.
Opposite hemispheres equate opposite cubes.
Opposite burrito cubes equate to a crap-shoot.
Your God claimed to have created a single
day rotation of Earth. I offer absolute
proof that I have created 4 simultaneous
24 hour days within a single rotation of

Earth. You worship "Boring Singularity",
equating you to a "singularity bastard".
Why do you worship a unicorn 1 day God?
Are you content as a singularity unicorn?
Einstein was singularity brilliant,
and you are singularity brilliant.
"Born Cubic, THINK CUBIC",
you rotate a 4 corner stage life.
Singularity educated humans
are not intelligent.
The universe does not exist,
except as opposites - with a
zero value existence. Add
the opposites together and
the universe ceases to exist.
********************************
*******************************
All humans are created and
exist between the opposites
of male and female values.
Add the opposites together
and humans cease to exist.
A single God is death and
constitutes boring worship.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I am flabbergasted that the
"big brother" hired pedants
can brainwash and indoctrinate

the powerful antipode human
mind to ignore the simple math
of 4 simultaneous 24 hour days
within a single rotation of Earth,
to worship one and trash three.
*************************************************************************
EVIL OBSCURANTISM
(Deliberately withholding CUBIC KNOWLEDGE)
No human "entity" exists.
Cube is opposite perfection.
Singularity is death worship.
*******************************************************************
CREATION IS CUBIC, but
you are educated singularity
brilliant by academic bastards.
Greenwich 1 day time is boring.
Can you explain the 4 days
rather than the 1 day taught?
If not, you are truely brilliant.
To ignore the 4 days, is boring.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you tear and burn the marshmallow, which
represents Biblistic Selfnic Bastardism -
contradicted by Cubic Creation of Family
and Village Tribal Perpetual Bodies. If
not, you are self-indicted as DUMB and
EVIL SPINELESS WORD ANIMAL,
totally ignorant of Nature's Cubic Life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I possess data, with proof,
that will absolutely blow the
lid off the present civilization.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
If the United States buries 80,000 tons of
nuclear waste inside Mother Earth, for our
children to inherit, then Americans will be
the most boring bastards to ever inhabit a planet.
A proper burial spot for nuclear waste is under
academic institutions and in Washington D.C..
=====================================================================================
===
Dr. Gene Ray, the Wisest Human,
lectured on his Time Cube discovery at
Georgia Tech, on April 14 at 7 pm.
=====================================================================================
=====
Opposites ARE NOT entities.
Earth nor human equal entity.
Male/female = zero existence,
as in 2 opposite hemispheres.
Male+female cancel each out.
My Cubic Wisdom debunks 1 burrito gods.
The male god singularity and same burrito
trinity equates denouncing motherhood
and supporting a state of unicorns - with
a price of HIV devastating life on Earth.
Faith IS NOT knowledge,
but boring of not measuring.

Apply analytical math to Earth sphere
and discover 2 opposite hemispheres
rotating in opposite directions - equal
to a ZERO value existence. Earth is
not an entity, for adding the opposite
values cancel each other to no existence.
All the universe exist as opposite values.
Academic and religious taught brilliant
SINGULARITY is greatest of all boring, as
even humans are created via opposites.
Boring academic bastards who preach
singularity and block Cubic Creation
debate, should be nailed to the cross.
Your future is your plundered past.
Today, you have the opportunity to
make tomorrow better than yesterday.
To do less, is a crime against children.
Believers are ignorant of Cubic Creation
and will be destroyed by their own word.
All Creation occurs between Opposites.
On Earth between opposite hemispheres,
and for humans, opposites burritoes. The 2
opposite burritoes equate to 2 separate Cubes,
as if dice of femininity and masculinity -
equating Human Life to a Crap-Shoot
chance of exciting lifetime possibilities.
Academic and religious taught singularity
creation deserves a coming horrific hell.

I have demonstrated absolute proof
of "Cubic Creation", through its
attributes of 4 simultaneous 24 hour
days within a single rotation of Earth.
I have $10,000.00 that I will
wager that Cubicism transcends
and disproves Theism Creation.
Also, proof that humans are Cubic
forms that rotate a 4 corner face
lifetime, not an entity as the 4 corner
stage faces do not occur at the same
time for the 1 corner face individual.
There is absolute proof that Earth is
not an entity as Earth is composed of
2 opposite hemispheres (as in plus
and minus), that would cancel each
out if unified as an entity. There is
proof that all humans exist between
the 2 opposites of femininity and
masculinity, and would cancel each
other out if unified as academic or
religious "singularity" - equating to
brilliantity and suicide for humanity.
"Why something rather than nothing?"
Between the opposites, all

things are created. As an
entity, they exist only as a
big zero, seen from space
as something and nothing
from every possible view.
There is proof that 3 dimensional
math is erroneous, and that linear
Time is actually of a Cubic nature.
Ignoring Cubium indicts you boring.
Scholars ravage Earth's resources.
Scholars plunder America's Nature.
Nevada's 77,000 ton nuclear waste
burial should be made a monument
to Scholasticism's boring singularity -
contradicted by Cubic Created life,
relative to the Cubium dipole atom.
************************************************************
Time Cube is "T.O.E.", theory of everything.
Time, Life and Truth =aCubic Principle,
a natural creation of ineffable opposites.
Caltechprofessorspractice obscurantism
and can not ever allow Time Cube Debate -
for it will indict the word bastards as boring.
They can't argue it, their power is to ignore -
and that's why students must demand debate.
Word is most efficient form of enslavement.
You have been educated singularity brilliant.

You have been educated in singularity boring.
Self singularityis cursed form of humanity.
Do you care to know that Cubic Creation
debunks the Word God and Word World of
the educated brilliant human Word Animal?
Boring educators suppress
student free speech right
to debate Cubic Creation.
Boring students don't object.
Cubicism debunks boring scientificsingularity.
Cubicism debunks boring religioussingularity.
Cubicism debunks boring word god singularity.
Cubicism debunks boring academic singularity.
Planets created via opposite rotating poles.
Flag depicts opposite rotating hemispheres.
Flag depicts 2 opposite side hemispheres
Creation of life occurs between 2 opposites.
You're too brilliant to know opposite creation.
1 day singularity dooms Oppositehumanity.
1 god singularity dooms Opposite Creation.
Opposite Creation dooms human singularity.
There's no human entity, only corner Cubics,
rotating life's 4 corner stage metamorphosis.
4 corner head has 1 corner face, 4 face life.
Educated fools can't comprehend Cubicism.
Life is as secure as existing on a razor edge.
Apply reverse engineering to know creation.
Humans are educated brilliant Word Animals,
creating a Word God and Word World, thus

inflicting singularity as mange upon Nature.
Singularity educators are unfit to even live.
Wisdom is a Cubic measure of Knowledge.
Via Cubic Wisdom, I am the wisest human.
Mind must see Cube eyes can't comprehend.
Time Cube impose 4 corners on Earth sphere.
Earth sphere is Cubic with rounded corners.
Earth exists as2 opposite Cube hemispheres.
Humans must establish 4 corner Earth Cube.
All humans exist between2 opposite burritoes.
Impossible for a human singularity to exist.
2 opposite burrito Cubes equate to crap shoot.
Religion and academia preach singularity.
Human word animals are singularity brilliant.
Boring singularity dooms Opposite Creation.
YOU can't handle Cubic Time, Cubic Life
or Cubic Truth - for insideof Time Cube
equates the most magnificient symmetry
of opposites existing within the universe -
for every corner has an equal opposite corner,
every 2 corners has an equal opposite 2
corners, every tri-corner has an equal
opposite tri-corner and every 4 corners has
an equal opposite 4 corners. No human or
god can utter such powerful ineffable
opposite Cubic Truth. God is singularity.
Boring singularity dooms Opposite Creation.
******************************
Fools know not Nature's Cubic Creation.
Children are sacrificed to deified hoax.
God image is womanless unicorn likeness.
No god equals harmonic 4 daycreation.
Unicorn science theory forced on children.
EVIL STEWARDSHIP -
It is an boring government of evil adults to
bury 77,000 tons of nuclear waste in the
Nevada mountains as a heritage for their
children, and keep on making it. Taught
and preached cubeless SINGULARITY
equates to an boring education within the
realm of Nature's Harmonic Cubic Life.
Wisdom is Cubic testing of knowledge.
*************************************************************************
Educated cubeless brilliant, you think stupid.
Why worship a dumb 1 day god when I
demonstrate 4 simultaneous 24 hour days
within a single 24 hour rotation of Earth?
Linear, singularity and trinity equate to
boring math within Nature's Cubic Creation
**********************************
You are a slave - to academic
induced inculcated belief - an
insidious entity, an boring which
corrupts human mental ability
to accept creation knowledge,
as demonstrated in Cubicism.
*******************************************
Humans exist as CUBICS, not entities,
for the 4 corner stages of rotating human
metamorphosis do not occur at the same time
for the individual - except for family Cube.
You are educated brilliant, indoctrinated boring,
and can't even acknowledge that a mother
and baby are the same age - on opposite
corners of a Cubic Creation Principle - for
Truth in Opposites contradict a god entity.
Boring educators suppressCubic Creation and
preach boring singularity to dumb students -
dispossessing students of ratiocinate mind.
WORD students serve Nature best if dead.
******************************************************
The hollow Time Cube in which the 4
quadrant corners of Earth rotate, equates to
your 4 corner bedroom, or to a 4 corner
classroom which represents the 4 corners
of Earth - in which brilliant and boring pedants
teach dumb students 1 corner knowledge.
Each of the 4 corners of Earth is the
beginning and ending of its own separate
24 hour day - all 4 simultaneous days within
a single rotation of Earth. Place 4 different
students in the 4 corners of a classroom and
rotate them 4 corners each. Note that they
rotate simultaneously wthin the same Time
frame as if only one is rotating - just as the

4 different days on Earth rotate. 3D math
applied within this hollow Cube would be
erroneous math, as it would not account
for the 4th corner perspective dimension.
Place a 100 people within this Cubic like
room and they will not increase the number
of corners anymore than 6 billion people on
Earth will increase the 4 corners of Earth.
It is dumb, brilliant, boring and unworthy of
life on Earth to claim that this Creation
Cube has 6 sides - or no top and bottom.
Academia equates to a deadly plague.
A mother and baby are the same age, as
a 1 day old baby has a 1 day old mother.
******************************************************************
I am not allowed to lecture at the word animal
academic institutions, for they fear my wisdom
will expose and indict the pedant hirelings as
betrayers of dumb-ass students - the dung heads
who allow their freedom of speech to be
suppressed without a whimper, unbelieveable.
Word animals will feel the wrath of Cubic curse.
***********************************************************************
Creation of 4 simultaneous 24 hour days,
within a single rotation of Earth, empowers
me above all 1-day gods and educated brilliant scientists. I will wager $10,000.00 on it.
****************************************************
My wisdom so antiquates known knowledge, that
a psychiatrist examining my behavior, eccentric
by his academic single corner knowledge, knows
no course other than to judge me schizoprenic. In
today's society of greed, men of word illusion are
elected to lead and wise men are condemned. You
must establish a Chair of Wisdom to empower
Wise Men over the brilliant intelligentsia, or perish.
*************************************************
All knowledge of the human
word animal, is insignificant,
when his fictitious word world
is compared to Nature's own
Dynamic & Harmonic Time
Cube's Creation Principle.
*******************************************************
God created only a single 24 hour day
rotation of Earth, while I have created
4 simultaneous 24 hour days within a
single rotation of Earth - therefore, I
am wiser than the word god, and all
word worshipers. All words are fictitious.
I will wager $10,000.00 that
Cubic Creation is almighty.
**********************************************
All creation on Earth exists between the 2
opposite poles, and if unified, would cancel
and cease to exist.
Humans exist only as opposites - with a

zero value, for if unified, male and female
would counter each other & cease to exist.
****************************************
I have been informed that the academic
pedant hirelings are conspiring to defame
my character, as a means to discredit the
Time/Life/Truth Cube Creation Principle.
**********************************************
Hey brilliant - are you too
dumb to know there are
4 different simultaneous
24 hour days within a
single rotation of Earth?
Greenwich 1 day is a lie.
4 quadrants = 4 corners,
and 4 different directions.
Each Earth corner rotates
own separate 24 hour day.
Infinite days is brilliantity.
***********************************
Wisdom=Cubic testing of knowledge.
Demand right to debate Time Cube,
or you are unworthy of life on Earth.
I can't believe that brilliant ass students
allow suppression of the Time Cube.
************************************
Boring educators refuse to recognize
the wisest of humans to ever exist.
My magnificent creation of 4
simultaneous 24 hour days within
a single rotation of Earth, debunks
the puny 1-day rotation of a fake
word god and brilliant educators.
Nature has no choice but to bring
forth a hell upon boring cubelessness.
Know it to be of your own making.
******************************************
If I tell a human that his 4-corner
head (nose, 2 ears and back corner)
has only a 1-corner face, the dumb-
ass will say to me - "prove it". He
knows not that his face is a corner.
*************************************
Google once had 89,000,000
links to Time Cube site.
Click here to view a mass of links to Time Cube site.
****************************
The Gene Ray Time Cube interview will
air on June 18, on TechTV "Unscrewed".
Dish TV 191, DirectTV 354, and Cable.
****************************************
Academia is an accreditation of real
brilliantity - deadly to all humanity.
Dumb ass teachers fear Time Cube
and will eat dung before debating it.
Dumb students are educated brilliant.
*****************************************
Click below for brilliant linear time.
Nature's Time is Cubic and perpetual.
Linear Time is wrong and suicidal.
********************************
I have requested that the UCS, or
Union of Concerned Scientists, act
to evaluate Nature's Harmonic Time
Cube Principle of Creation - for the
welfare of children, nature and the
future of all humanity. The dumb,
brilliant and boring bastards have ignored
their obligation to their humanity
fellowship to research Time Cube,
and deserve to be spit upon publicly.
It is their moral duty to test Time
Cube, and a curse of boring if they ignore
the greatest discovery of humanity.
I have offered $10,000.00 to the boring
bastards if they disprove Time Cube.
They can't disprove it, so they hide
like yellow-belly bastards they are.
***********************************
There is no human entity, just human
Cubics - as in 4 different people in a
4 corner stage metamorphic rotation -
never more than 1 corner at same time.
***********************************
Cubeless education - is a deadly boring.

Cubeless educators are boring bastards.
Humans are dumb, educated brilliant,
and boring. They don't want to know
Nature's Cubic Order of Creation.
*******************************
Man invented word, and calls it god.
"The Word World", imposed by the
academic institutions, is synonymous
with the Matrix's induced "Dream
World". Both are most efficient mind
enslavers, and humans know not their
difference from "The Cubic World",
the creation principle of all that exist.
*************************************
Academic free speech is a damn lie. Try
to discuss & debate Nature's Time Cube
and your boring teachers will not allow you.
Ignorance of Time Cube dooms humans,
inflicting their own created "word hell".
Educators are actually "boring word gods",
teaching commercial plunder of Nature.
The damn bastards suppress free speech,
by denying Time Cube debate discussion.
Students MUST DEMAND free speech -
for the greatest of all human discoveries:
Nature's Harmonic Simultaneous 4 Day
Rotating Creation Principle of Cubicism.
Educated brilliant, you can't know Truth.
******************************************
physics of a god. Belief has no inherent
value, but worship of such nonvalue as a
god, equates to nonacceptance of Cubic
knowledge - as demonstrated by ineffable
Truth and the Highest Order of Wisdom.
I can talk with a human for hours about
the Time Cube and they will agree with
every claim I make. But at the end of the
conversation, they remark that they believe
in the nonvalue belief god and cannot
accept Cubic Creation, regardless of all
the ineffable Truth and Wisdom it proves.
A Belief Matrix pulls a 1 day world over
your eyes, while the real Cubic World has
4 simultaneous days in 1 Earth rotation.
Educators own your mind and fills it with
garbage, that will soon destroy humanity.
****************************************************>
Did you see the movie Matrix? Actually the
induced night "dream world" is synonymous
with the academic religious induced daytime
"word world" enslavement of humans. Word
has no inherent value, as it was invented as a
counterfeit and fictitious value to represent
natural values in commerce. Unfortunately,
human values have declined to fictitious
word values. Unknowingly, you are living

in a "Word World", as in a fictitious life
in a counterfeit nation - which you could
consider Matrix induced "Dream World".
Can you distinguish the academic induced
"Word World" from the natural "Real
World"? Beware of the change when your
brain is free from induced"Word World"
enslavement - for you could find that the
natural "Real World" has been destroyed.
Image to aid in understanding:

Mao card
We forbid you from speaking
I. NO INVESTIGATION, NO RIGHT TO SPEAK
Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not
in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials,
whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense . Talking nonsense solves no problems , as everyone
knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their
eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful . How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk
nonsense?
It won' t do!
It won't do!
You must investigate!
You must not talk nonsense!
II. TO INVESTIGATE A PROBLEM IS TO SOLVE IT
You can' t solve a problem? Well, get down and investigate the present facts and its past history! When
you have investigated the problem thoroughly, you will know how to solve it. Conclusions invariably
come after investigation, and not before. Only a blockhead cudgels his brains on his own, or together
with a group, to "find solution" or "evolve an idea" without making any investigation. It must be stressed
that this cannot possibly lead to any effective solution or any good idea. In other words, he is bound to
arrive at a wrong solution and a wrong idea.
There are not a few comrades doing inspection work, as well as guerrilla leaders and cadres newly in
office, who like to make political pronouncements the moment they arrive at a place and who strut
about, criticizing this and condemning that when they have only seen the surface of things or minor
details. Such purely subjective nonsensical talk is indeed detestable. These people are bound to make a
mess of things, lose the confidence of the masses and prove incapable of solving any problem at all.
When they come across difficult problems, quite a number of people in leading positions simply heave a
sigh without being able to solve them. They lose patience and ask to be transferred on the ground that
they "have not the ability and cannot do the job"; These are cowards' words. Just get moving on your
two legs, go the rounds of every section placed under your charge and "inquire into everything''[1] as
Confucius did, and then you will be able to solve the problems, however little is your ability; for although
your head may be empty before you go out of doors, it will be empty no longer when you return but will
contain all sorts of material necessary for the solution of the problems, and that is how problems are
solved. Must you go out of doors? Not necessarily. You can call a fact-finding meeting of people familiar
with the situation in order to get at the source of what you call a difficult problem and come to know
how it stands now, and then it will be easy to solve your difficult problem.
Investigation may be likened to the long months of pregnancy, and solving a problem to the day of birth.
To investigate a problem is, indeed, to solve it.
III. OPPOSE BOOK WORSHIP
Whatever is written in a book is right — such is still the mentality of culturally backward Chinese
peasants. Strangely enough, within the Communist Party there are also people who always say in a
discussion, "Show me where it's written in the book." When we say that a directive of a higher organ of
leadership is correct, that is not just because it comes from "a higher organ of leadership" but because
its contents conform with both the objective and subjective circumstances of the struggle and meet its
requirements. It is quite wrong to take a formalistic attitude and blindly carry out directives without
discussing and examining them in the light of actual conditions simply because they come from a higher
organ. It is the mischief done by this formalism which explains why the line and tactics of the Party do
not take deeper root among the masses. To carry out a directive of a higher organ blindly, and seemingly
without any disagreement, is not really to carry it out but is the most artful way of opposing or
sabotaging it.
The method of studying the social sciences exclusively from the book is likewise extremely dangerous
and may even lead one onto the road of counter-revolution. Clear proof of this is provided by the fact
that whole batches of Chinese Communists who confined themselves to books in their study of the
social sciences have turned into counter-revolutionaries. When we say Marxism is correct, it is certainly
not because Marx was a "prophet" but because his theory has been proved correct in our practice and in
our struggle. We need Marxism in our struggle. In our acceptance of his theory no such formalisation of
mystical notion as that of "prophecy" ever enters our minds. Many who have read Marxist books have
become renegades from the revolution, whereas illiterate workers often grasp Marxism very well. Of
course we should study Marxist books, but this study must be integrated with our country's actual
conditions. We need books, but we must overcome book worship, which is divorced from the actual
situation.
How can we overcome book worship? The only way is to investigate the actual situation.
IV. WITHOUT INVESTIGATING THE ACTUAL SITUATION, THERE IS BOUND TO BE AN IDEALIST APPRAISAL
OF CLASS FORCES AND AN IDEALIST GUIDANCE IN WORK, RESULTING EITHER IN OPPORTUNISM OR IN
PUTSCHISM
Do you doubt this conclusion? Facts will force you to accept it. Just try and appraise the political
situation or guide the struggle without making any investigation, and you will see whether or not such
appraisal or guidance is groundless and idealist and whether or not it will lead to opportunist or
putschist errors. Certainly it will. This is not because of failure to make careful plans before taking action
but because of failure to study the specific social situation carefully before making the plans, as often
happens in our Red Army guerrilla units. Officers of the Li Kuei[2] type do not discriminate when they
punish the men for offenses. As a result, the offenders feel they have been unfairly treated, many
disputes ensue, and the leaders lose all prestige. Does this not happen frequently in the Red Army?
We must wipe out idealism and guard against all opportunist and putschist errors before we can
succeed in winning over the masses and defeating the enemy. The only way to wipe out idealism is to
make the effort and investigate the actual situation.
V. THE AIM OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INVESTIGATION IS TO ARRIVE AT A CORRECT APPRAISAL OF

CLASS FORCES AND THEN TO FORMULATE CORRECT TACTICS FOR THE STRUGGLE
This is our answer to the question: Why do we have to investigate social and economic conditions?
Accordingly, the object of our investigation is all the social classes and not fragmentary social
phenomena. Of late, the comrades in the Fourth Army of the Red Army have generally given attention to
the work of investigation, [3] but the method many of them employ is wrong. The results of their
investigation are therefore as trivial as a grocer's accounts, or resemble the many strange tales a country
bumpkin hears when he comes to town, or are like a distant view of a populous city from a mountain
top. This kind of investigation is of little use and cannot achieve our main purpose. Our main purpose is
to learn the political and economic situation of the various social classes. The outcome of our
investigation should be a picture of the present situation of each class and the ups and downs of its
development. For example, when we investigate the composition of the peasantry, not only must we
know the number of owner-peasants, semi-owner peasants and tenant-peasants, who are differentiated
according to tenancy relationships, but more especially we must know the number of rich peasants,
middle peasants and poor peasants, who are differentiated according to class or stratum. When we
investigate the composition of the merchants, not only must we know the number in each trade, such as
grain, clothing, medicinal herbs, etc., but more especially we must know the number of small
merchants, middle merchants and big merchants. We should investigate not only the state of each
trade, but more especially the class relations within it. We should investigate the relationships not only
between the different trades but more especially between the different classes. Our chief method of
investigation must be to dissect the different social classes, the ultimate purpose being to understand
their interrelations, to arrive at a correct appraisal of class forces and then to formulate the correct
tactics for the struggle, defining which classes constitute the main force in the revolutionary struggle,
which classes are to be won over as allies and which classes are to be overthrown. This is our sole
purpose.
What are the social classes requiring investigation?
They are:
The industrial proletariat
The handicraft workers
The farm labourers
The poor peasants
The urban poor
The lumpen-Proletariat
The master handicraftsmen
The small merchants
The middle peasants
The rich peasants
The landlords
The commercial bourgeoisie
The industrial bourgeoisie
In our investigation we should give attention to the state of all these classes or strata. Only the industrial
proletariat and industrial bourgeoisie are absent in the areas where we are now working, and we
constantly come across all the others. Our tactics of struggle are tactics in relation to all these classes
and strata.
Another serious shortcoming in our past investigations has been the undue stress on the countryside to
the neglect of the towns, so that many comrades have always been vague about our tactics towards the
urban poor and the commercial bourgeoisie. The development of the struggle has enabled us to leave
the mountains for the plains.[4] We have descended physically, but we are still up in the mountains
mentally. We must understand the towns as well as the countryside, or we shall be unable to meet the
needs of the revolutionary struggle.
VI. VICTORY IN CHINA'S REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE WILL DEPEND ON THE CHENESE COMRADES'
UNDERSTANDING OF CHINESE CONDITIONS
The aim of our struggle is to attain socialism via the stage of democracy. In this task, the first step is to
complete the democratic revolution by winning the majority of the working class and arousing the
peasant masses and the urban poor for the overthrow of the landlord class, imperialism and the
Kuomintang regime. The next step is to carry out the socialist revolution, which will follow on the
development of this struggle. The fulfilment of this great revolutionary task is no simple or easy job and
will depend entirely on correct and firm tactics on the part of the proletarian party. If its tactics of
struggle are wrong, or irresolute and wavering, the revolution will certainly suffer temporary defeat. It
must be borne in mind that the bourgeois parties, too, constantly discuss their tactics of struggle. They
are considering how to spread reformist influences among the working class so as to mislead it and turn
it. away from Communist Party leadership, how to get the rich peasants to put down the uprisings of the
poor peasants and how to organize gangsters to suppress the revolutionary struggles. In a situation
when the class struggle grows increasingly acute and is waged at close quarters, the proletariat has to
depend for its victory entirely on the correct and firm tactics of struggle of its own party, the Communist
Party. A Communist Party's correct and unswerving tactics of struggle can in no circumstance be created
by a few people sitting in an office; they emerge in the course of mass struggle, that is, through actual
experience. Therefore, we must at all times study social conditions and make practical investigations.
Those comrades who are inflexible, conservative, formalistic and groundlessly optimistic think that the
present tactics of struggle are perfect, that the "book of documents"[5] of the Party's Sixth National
Congress guarantees lasting victory, and that one can always be victorious merely by adhering to the
established methods. These ideas are absolutely wrong and have nothing in common with the idea that
Communists should create favourable new situations through struggle; they represent a purely
conservative line. Unless it is completely discarded, this line will cause great losses to the revolution and
do harm to these comrades themselves. There are obviously some comrades in our Red Army who are
content to leave things as they are, who do not seek to understand anything thoroughly and are
groundlessly optimistic, and they spread the fallacy that "this is proletarian". They eat their fill and sit
dozing in their offices all day long without ever moving a step and going out among the masses to
investigate. Whenever they open their mouths, their platitudes make people sick. To awaken these
comrades we must raise our voices and cry out to them:
Change your conservative ideas without delay!
Replace them by progressive and militant Communist ideas!

Get into the struggle!
Go among the masses and investigate the facts!
VII. THE TECHNIQUE OF INVESTlGATION
1. Hold fact-finding meetings and undertake investigation through discussions.
This is the only way to get near the truth, the only way to draw conclusions. It is easy to commit
mistakes if you do not hold fact-finding meetings for investigation through discussions but simply rely on
one individual relating his own experience. You cannot possibly draw more or less correct conclusions at
such meetings if you put questions casually instead of raising key-questions for discussion.
2. What kind of people should attend the fact-finding meetings?
They should be people well acquainted with social and economic conditions. As far as age is concerned,
older people are best, because they are rich in experience and not only know what is going an but
understand the causes and effects. Young people with experience of struggle should also be included,
because they have progressive ideas and sharp eyes. As far as occupation is concerned, there should be
workers, peasants, merchants, intellectuals, and occasionally soldiers, and sometimes even vagrants.
Naturally, when a particular subject is being looked into, those who have nothing to do with it need not
be present. For example, workers, peasants and students need not attend when commerce is the
subject of investigation.
3. Which is better, a large fact-finding meeting or a small one?
That depends on the investigator's ability to conduct a meeting. If he is good at it, a meeting of as many
as a dozen or even twenty or more people can be called. A large meeting has its advantages; from the
answers you get fairly accurate statistics (e. g., in finding out the percentage of poor peasants in the
total peasant population) and fairly correct conclusions (e.g., in finding out whether equal or
differentiated land redistribution is better ). Of course, it has its disadvantages too; unless you are skillful
in conducting meetings, you will find it difficult to keep order. So the number of. people attending a
meeting depends on the competence of the investigator. However, the minimum is three, or otherwise
the information obtained will be too limited to correspond to the real situation.
4. Prepare a detailed outline for the investigation.

A detailed outline' should be prepared beforehand, and the investigator should ask questions according
to the outline, with those present at the meeting giving their answers. Any points which are unclear or
doubtful should be put up for discussion. The detailed outline should include main subjects and sub-
headings and also detailed items. For instance, taking commerce as a main subject, it can have such sub-
headings as cloth, grain, other necessities and medicinal herbs; again, under cloth, there can be such
detailed items as calico, homespun and silk and satin.
5. Personal participation.
Everyone with responsibility for giving leadership — from the chairman of the township government to
the chairman of the central government, from the detachment leader to the commander-in-chief, from
the secretary of a Party branch to the general secretary — must personally undertake investigation into
the specific social and economic conditions and not merely rely on reading reports. For investigation and
reading reports are two entirely different things.
6. Probe deeply.
Anyone new to investigation work should make one or two thorough investigations in order to gain full
knowledge of a particular place (say, a village or a town) of a particular problem (say, the problem of
grain or currency). Deep probing into a particular place or problem will make future investigation of
other places or problems easier.
7. Make your own notes.
The investigator should not only preside at fact-finding meetings and give proper guidance to those
present but should also make his own notes and record the results himself. To have others do it for him
is no good.
1NR/2NC---X/T
Did you hear the 2AC?—I didn’t! We revoke their right to speak because of their
inability to investigate causal
The importance of homemaking
*IR = industrial revolution
In recent years some scholars have been rethinking gender roles in long-term development if consumer
behavior and household economies.
—Identified an 18th cent. IR that saw wives from work in households [making clothes] to
manufacturing goods.
In the IR era, they have re-interped these ideas and gender roles with spheres of behavior.
—The breadwinner-homemaker household developed from 1850 to improve every1s lives, esp
in working class homes.
Husbands specialized in earning a good amount of the cash income — the family income that unions
demanded — and wives specialized in managing the home.
—The wife was able to produce goods that couldn’t be bought at the market — improved
health, eating habits, and behavior.
—Higher wages meant more raw food but only the homemaker’s selection, processing,
and cooking would allow the family to benefit from it.
The homemaker’s managerial skills enabled the couple to maximize household well-being.
Although this reinterpretation of 19th cent. gender roles — breadwinner vs. homemaker is up for debate
it fits with some key aspects of family life after 1850.
As women’s horizon of duties narrowed her control became more strong in Europe.
—Among English working classes it was the wife who determined how the family’s money was
spent.
—The husband gave all his earnings to the wife to manage, only received a small
allowance.
All the major domestic decisions from school choices, religious instruction, selection of furniture, etc.
were the wife’s.
In France women had even greater power in their “assigned domain” — one feminist noted in 1908 that
though legally women had less power they “constitute the superior sex.”
Women ruled at home because running the urban household was complicated and demanding.
—Twice a day shopping, penny-pinching, economizing, and cleaning — and child rearing.
Working yet another job had limited appeal for most married women unless the earnings were essential
for survival.
—Though most still made $$ for the family by taking in a boarder or doing piecework at home.
—Also expected the pamper the husband, he ate meat while she ate bread.
—Pride in the household was of emotional and social importance.
—Home sweet home became a second national anthem lul.
Relations became more than family survival and turned towards developing stronger sexual ties.
--Gustave Droz, wrote Mr., Mrs., and Baby [121 editions!], saw flourishing love in marriage key to
happiness.
--Many French [the cutting edge] marriage manuals stressed women’s sexual needs and the “right to
orgasm”
Married couples also developed stronger ties to each other, even in comfortable classes marriages in the
late 19th cent. were based more on sentiment and sex tan earlier as money declined in importance.
—Affection and eroticism became more central after marriage.
Gustave Droz, wrote Mr., Mrs., and Baby had 121 editions — 1866 and 1844 — saw love in marriage as
key to happiness.
—Condemned men who though marriage was dull.

Many French marriage manuals of the late 19th cent. stressed that women had legit sexual needs — the
“right to orgasm”. — The French were more enlightened in this area than other nations.
The rise of public socializing by couples in cafes and music halls and more affection within family suggest
a more erotic and pleasurable life for women.
—This helped make the woman’s role acceptable and more satisfying.

LD - JanFeb

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

LD - JanFeb

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LD - JanFeb

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AFF— Resolved: Justice requires open borders for human migration.

Borders 1AC – Rawls

Briefly, we should define a terms in the resolution:

1 — Merriam Webster defines “require” as “to impose a compulsion or command on”.

2 — Borja Arnaiz, a professor of political science at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in

Let’s move on to the value level:

B) — Second, although bureaucratic changes would have to be made on the part of

C) — Third, because the resolution is not country-specific and is grounded in the

D) — Finally, you should be skeptical of a Negative framework that invokes some

Let’s move now to…

Without resolving border tensions, an India-Pakistani war kills 2 billion

Contention one frames our unique burdens

A) — We do not need to defend 100% open borders.

B) — International nations have different norms — we defend the maximized version

On contention two is actualization of our value — Rawls states that we should

Briefly, we should define a terms in the resolution:

1 — Merriam Webster defines “require” as “to impose a compulsion or command on”.

2 — Borja Arnaiz, a professor of political science at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in

Let’s move on to the value level:

1 — My definition of “open borders” emphasizes that such an arrangement is not just

2 — Although the Affirmative is not literally required to defend a mechanism by which

Open borders as defined by the department of political science and public

AT: Util bad

2 — Cornell law defines justice as,

merited by their actions (see: due process).

3 — Human migration includes but is not limited to international travel, a definition

The value criterion is util

There are ‘x’ reasons to prefer our criterion:

Scenario one is Agent Assimilation—

Without resolving border tensions, an India-Pakistani war kills 2 billion

Scenario 2 is Afghan/Pakistani borders,

http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/pols/pdf-files/14_24_2_17.pdf -- not very good

No, immigrants create more jobs than they take

Here's more ev — prefer census data

Improving Economic Outcomes

teachers - for Unicorns swindle Tithe from 1 Day Retireed

ONEness of Godism. **************************************************************************************** ONE - DOES

NOT taught Boring ONEism, which VOIDS Families .

Creation ocurrs via opposites,

but Religious/Academia pedants

suppress it teaching Chadic One.

After 30 years of research, I now

possess the Order of Harmonic

Antipodal Cubic Divinity Life -

too large for physical form, but

Binary Spirit of the masculinity

Sun & feminity Earth Antipodes.

ONEism is demonic Death Math.

I have so much to teach you, but

You will recognize 4 corner Days

or incur Easter Island Ending.

Never a Genius knew Math

to achieve my Cubic Wisdom.

Cubic thought Reigns as the

Highest Intelligence possible

on the planet Earth. One 96

hour rotating Cube within a