Reprinted from American Greatness.
Among the signs carried by the northbound invasion, one in particular stands out: “Pueblos Sin Fronteras.” This is the name of a group that organizes the so-called migrant caravans, but it also doubles as the _raison d’être _of the mob itself. They are not marching north to become good little capitalist “Americans,” much less citizens of the United States. In fact, they hate capitalism, bellowing socialist chants of: “We are international workers!”
They do not march because they look fondly upon our country, its institutions, its values, or its culture. And, no, they are not “fleeing” the violence and poverty of the pueblo. Rather, what they want is to bring the pueblo to us. They are convinced that it is their manifest destiny to do so.
Americans tend to think only _we_ put stock in our destiny, and we don’t like to think of ourselves as conquerable—and certainly not already conquered. But if we cannot control our borders, let alone have a say in who may live among us, what might we call that condition?
Who Are the 14,000 and Counting?
As it has done in so many other Western nations, neo-Marxist education has stripped us of our ability even to conceive of anyone other than ourselves as conquerors (which, ironically, is rather condescending and paternalistic!). We learn to see only the evil in ourselves, and the “good” in everyone else—even those who would destroy our civilization. No people but us hateful and sinful Americans has the capacity to carry out something so incorrigible as “manifest destiny” anyway.
It is beyond the comprehension of our moral betters in the media, academia, entertainment, and government, that Third Worlders are even capable of doing harm—perennially “oppressed,” as we are assured they are, by white men in the midwest who have never even so much as seen the blood soaked streets of Guatemala on TV.
Yet here they come. As of Monday, they were 14,000-strong and screaming: “No one will stop us, only God.” And those Mexicans who we think only wish us well? They’re helping the invasion along, even joining it. Why wouldn’t they? Their president-elect told them that they have a “right” to violate our sovereignty. Moreover, “It’s solidarity,” Maria Teresa Orellana tells a journalist. Orellana handed out free sandals to the the swarm as it passed through her neighborhood. “They’re our brothers,” she said.
Orellana wasn’t alone. As the mob marched through Ciudad Hidalgo, “they drew applause, cheers and donations of food and clothing from Mexicans,” the _Washington Times _reports.
The majority of Mexicans showed Americans what they thought of them, when they carried the expressly anti-American Andrés Manuel Obrador to Los Pinos by a landslide. “The mass support for the immigrant caravan across Latin America testifies to growing consciousness of the international character of the working class,” writes one socialist reporter. I would add that there is a growing ethno-racial consciousness, too—and it is explicitly anti-gringo. But there are other reasons to fear the swarm surging toward us.
Recently, Prensa Libre, the biggest newspaper in Guatemala, reported that 100 Islamic State terrorists were apprehended by federal agents. Guatemala is a global human smuggling capital through which individuals from Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Nepal and Bangladesh, and other Middle Eastern and Asian countries, enter the United States illegally.
That said, there is one group of people in the Middle East that we might learn from.
When Palestinians cry, “Death to the Jews,” the Israelis do not muse over what could be the esoteric and defanged meaning of “Death to the Jews.” They do not turn to hierophants to interpret for them the “true” meanings of explicit of death threats. The Israelis do not ask, “but how will we get on without cheap Palestinian labor?” Rather, they built a wall. They reinforce the wall with men. They defend their land and their people. We have we not yet learned this lesson, even as the United States is teetering on the edge of civilizational suicide.
Looking Past the Media Narrative
Looking at pictures not handpicked by the managers of public opinion in the press, one cannot help but notice that these “migrants” are mostly young, military-aged males. Many of them appear angry, shouting, and scowling.
“We are going to stay together, we won’t be broken,” said one Honduran. In other words, the members of the mob intend to break us, like they broke through a steel barrier at the Guatemala-Mexico border. Something about these howling savages ripping through metal with their bare hands doesn’t quite fit with the narrative of them as harmless travelers.
Then there is, of course, the media’s favorite: migrants with children. There are two kinds of people who would subject little children to this ordeal: those who have abducted them to try pose as “family units” at our border (there have been 400 such attempts this year), and failed parents who should be considered hideously immoral. Who else would imperil the lives of their children by reducing them to mere sympathy tokens with which they hope to purchase access to our country—a legal and moral discount compliments of the progressives among us.
These “parents” have literally lined up for paychecks from unknown benefactors along with their children in order to participate in this march—just in time for midterms, just when the Left needs a boost. But who paid them is not so important as the fact that they accepted the payment. Mercenaries, then, not “migrants” come our way. Are these the “family values” we want to import?
The northbound invaders will test our societal will to live, without which we may as well consider the _Reconquista _settled. Of course, some would celebrate such a defeat, and they write for the New York Times, claiming that their ancestors were here long before the “white man” set foot on the continent. A scene from “The Year of the Dragon,” a 1985 film directed by the patriotic Italian-American, Michael Cimino, comes to mind.
Playing a Polish-American cop and Vietnam vet, Mickey Rourke returns home from the war to find that America has imported the “diverse” culture he encountered in Asia. Faced with violence and a narcoculture dealt by ethnic gangs, who justify it under the banner of their “thousands of years”-old culture, Rourke responds:
You people think gambling and extortion are kosher because it’s a thousand years old. All this thousand year old stuff is shit to me. This is America you’re living in, and it’s 200 years old, so you better get your clocks fixed.
How we face down the coming mob is the question before us now. Will we be cowed into letting our destroyers among us to “atone” for the historical grievances spread before our feet by the Left? Or will we insist that not a single one set foot on American soil? And that includes children, if we care about the fact that one in four MS-13 gang members arrested or charged with crimes since 2012 entered the United States as an unaccompanied minor. If we cannot ensure that these children do not end up in violent gangs, where their victims, ironically, are typically other minorities and immigrants, then we have no business taking them in—yet the Left insists that we do this in the name of compassion.
What kind of cheap compassion is that?
The “Saints” Go Marching In
The motives of the Left, however well known, are less important than the consequences of their actions. Ultimately, this swarm should serve as a telegram to us of what awaits if we do not change course on immigration.
According to a recent Gallup poll, 13 percent of the world’s adults—or more than 640 million people—say they would like to leave their country permanently, with 150 million responding that they would like to move to America—and that does not not account for the relatives who would invariably accompany them. Whether the United States could comfortably accommodate all those people, is a matter of how one defines “comfortably.” Yet there is more at stake than amber waves of grain.
In 1973, Jean Raspail published the prophetic Le Camp des Saints after one day sitting on a beach in the South of France near Saint-Raphaël, in Vallauris. Raspail recalled looking out across the Mediterranean in 1971 and being struck by the terrible thought: “What if _they_ were to come? I did not know who ‘they’ were, but it seemed inevitable to me that the numberless disinherited people of the South would, like a tidal wave, set sail one day for this opulent shore, our fortunate country’s wide-gaping frontier.”
Raspail’s migrants have no intention of assimilating into French culture, and the French government is unwilling to repel their advance out of “compassion.” The migrants flood France, aided and abetted by the Left, and yet demand First World living conditions even as they reduce it to the Third, victimizing Europeans and non-Europeans who have assimilated into French culture out of patriotism.
The novel has been condemned by some as “racist” and “xenophobic.” Then in 2001, a boatload of Kurdish refugees came ashore in Boulouris, near Saint-Raphaël, just a few yards from the office where Raspail wrote Le Camp des Saints. The present migrant crisis, said Raspail in a 2015 interview, “puts an end to 30 years of insults and slander against me.” It’s worth noting that _Saints _ends with Westerners, European and non-European alike, as refugees themselves.
Raspail believes that the collapse of the West is inevitable, unless we can put aside our misguided and uninformed sense of “compassion.” Certainly, this premise seems heartless, unless we consider what exactly it is that we are asked to have “compassion” for.
If as in California, for example, Latinos outnumber whites and yet Latino children constitute the greatest number of poor children in the state, can it be said that we are compassionate toward children? If nonwhite immigrants are most likely to victimize other minorities in impoverished communities, can it be said that we are compassionate toward minorities? If immigrants take jobs from unskilled American laborers (blacks, and those who are the children of immigrants included), can it be said that we are compassionate toward our own poor? If every American citizen murdered by an illegal alien, is a murder that could have been avoided simply by enforcing existing laws, can it be said that we are compassionate toward our own citizens?
Our “compassion,” then, is akin to purchasing drugs for an addict as we watch him waste away. Our momentary feeling of pride for our supposed righteousness is the cause of untold suffering for people who have a higher claim to our sympathies.
The mob has made its perception of us clear: “Donald Trump is the antichrist.” But their holy war is not against Trump per se, for they would certainly celebrate him if he held our borders open to them. Rather, Trump is their “antichrist” because he stands for what they and the Left have rejected: sovereignty, the rule of law, nationhood, order itself.
And yes, you, are their adversary, too, if you stand for these things.
As the invading army marches north and the Left, with their Democratic and Republican allies, eggs them on, can Americans put aside their petty differences and unite under a common interest to fight for their right to live, to exist as a civilization? Or will we consign ourselves to quietly acquiescing a Raspailian fate? Immigration is not _an_ issue in our time, it is _the _issue of our time.
Leave a Reply