Summary: The crying migrant child revealed much about how America has changed – and continues to change. We see the world differently, our values are different, we evaluate things differently. This puts us on a journey with an unknowable end. William Lind sees this in the debate about immigration, the central issue of our time. Do we have the will to take stern but necessary measures in self-defense?
“The Crying Child“
By William Lind at Traditional Right.
Posted with his generous permission.
In its quest to swamp native-born Americans in a sea of third world immigrants, the Left last week deployed one of its most powerful weapons: a crying child. You have all seen the photo: the illegal immigrant, the Border Patrol officer and the small child bawling. At that sight, we are all supposed to dissolve into tears ourselves and do something, anything so the child does not cry.
This is the sort of drivel one gets in a feminized society. Facts and reason are to yield to feelings. It matters not that this day and every day somewhere around a billion children cry. If thirty seconds later the officer handed the brat a sucker and the tears turned to smiles, there was no picture of that. A feminized society indulges in a culture of emotion, of pathos, of weakness.
In a world of Fourth Generation war, such societies will not survive. While most people think of the 4GW threat in terms of terrorism, that is a very small threat compared to the threat of invasion by immigration. We would do well to remember that the barbarians who overwhelmed and destroyed the Roman Empire were immigrants. With the exception of the Vandals, most of them did not come to destroy the Empire. They were trying to move in and enjoy its benefits. But they came in such numbers that Rome was overwhelmed.
The 21st century is likely to see similar flows of whole peoples. A combination of climate change, state collapse, and famine will see not millions, but tens of millions and hundreds of millions of refugees. Few are going to flee to India or Africa. They will head to places where life is good, Europe and North America. Unless we are prepared to do whatever is necessary to keep them out, we, like Rome, will be swamped, and all will end up in a new Dark Age. The immigrants may be seeking our way of life, but their numbers will be such that they will turn us into whatever they are fleeing. This has already happened along much of our southern border.
President Trump’s policy of separating children from their families was a disincentive for illegal immigrants to come here {Ed: Obama began it}. We need every such disincentive we can devise. If the policy seemed cruel – again, to a feminized society – it was very moderate compared to what the U.S. and Europe will eventually have to do to stem the human tide. When most of a flooded Bangladesh boards a fleet of rust bucket ships and heads for Europe, Europe will either have to sink the ships or watch The Camp of the Saints scenario play out. We will need, along with our southern border, not a wall but something like the old East-West German border. Anyone who tries to cross dies.
That is, after all, what borders meant well up into the post-World War II era. Border patrols did not arrest people trying to cross illegally. They shot them.
A practical measure we need to revive immediately is to prohibit all entry to anyone without prior approval, including asylum-seekers. In the case of legitimate travel, this means bringing back visas. If we are talking about immigrants, we should return to the policy we followed from 1920 until the 1960s. Anyone wishing to immigrate into the United States had to be examined, tested, and pre-approved, under a quota system and with an American citizen’s sponsorship. The sponsor was required to take responsibility for the new immigrant, which meant helping them find a place to live and a job. They weren’t just dumped on the American taxpayer.
A feminized society can do none of these things because, well, a child might cry. Someone might feel bad. To America’s good fortune, feminization and the broader cultural Marxism into which feminism has been subsumed in recent decades is largely confined to the coastal elites. Heartland Americans, men and women, know the world is a tough place. A culture of sentiment and of weakness does not appeal to them. They know their children and grandchildren will pay the price if we leave the floodgates open. And, as President Trump’s election showed, the Heartland is rising as the coastal elites, sobbing all the way, lose their grips. Heartland people’s answer to a crying child is the one their parents gave them: “Keep it up and I’ll give you something to cry about.” Starting with getting sent home.
—————————————-
About the author
William S. Lind’s director of the American Conservative Center for Public Transportation. He has a Master’s Degree in History from Princeton University in 1971. He worked as a legislative aide for armed services for Senator Robert Taft, Jr., of Ohio from 1973 through 1976 and held a similar position with Senator Gary Hart of Colorado from 1977 through 1986. See his bio at Wikipedia
Mr. Lind is author of the Maneuver Warfare Handbook
He’s perhaps best known for his articles about the long war, now published as On War: The Collected Columns of William S. Lind 2003-2009
- Posts at TraditionalRight.
- His articles about geopolitics at The American Conservative.
- His articles about transportation at The American Conservative.
For More Information
Ideas! For shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
If you found this post of use, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about William Lind’s work, about immigrants, and especially these…
- Essential reading about hidden history: The history of immigration and America, lost amidst the more useful myths.
- Migration from the south into America: new people, new foods, new political systems.
- Immigration as a reverse election: our leaders get a new people.
- Look at immigration policy to see our government respond to its masters.
- The numbers about immigration that fuel Trump’s campaign.
- Immigration to the US surges. It’s good news for Trump.
- Trump wants to defend our borders. Democrats protest.
- The lies about immigration keeping the borders open.
- Immigration is the key political battle of our time.
To better understand immigration
As so often the case, we can see these political dynamics more clear in other societies. We can learn much from the immigration crisis in Europe. It is our future.
Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West
The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam
In Europe it is already to late. There is a saying that goes something like this: If you don’t know where you are going some is going to take you where you don’t want to be.
Media will lead with sentiment that is designed to sell newspapers.
We will see if America has the moral and ethical fiber to stand against the onslaught that is sure to come.
This is not an invasion confined to America and Europe. Australia, NZ, South Africa, Canada and others are all feeling the effects of mass immigration.
To turn the tide it may very well require an Israeli solution. large fences and kneecapping if necessary.
We will see if we have the balls.
My entire extended family on my mother’s side left Europe in 1961. Our patriarch was a leader we all looked up to. He had seen the whole world. He faught Nazis in WW2 and USSR during Cold War. He was very wise and prescient.
He and my grandmother settled and are buried in their beloved USA. All of us who love our Constitution became citizens. Some who are Leftist did not but reap great benefits because of their Green Cards. At least they can’t vote.
It has become acutely apparent we made the right choice.
From 1940 to 1945 my Mother’s Father’s family protected an entire extended family of Jews. They all survived!
His wisdom would have been welcome here, especially with Martin Van Creveld.
He had big balls.
With a failing state on our Southern Border which just elected a Leftist Chavezta who tells his citizens they have a right to invade Estados Unidos de America, we better enhance our Southern Defences. Maybe a Southern Offensive is neccessary and we invade Mexico because of our “Responsibility to Protect”.
A real barrier instead of 5 strands of barbed wire laying on the ground is required. These migrations/invasions are Demographic Warfare, an aspect of 4GW.
Dr. Lind is absolutely spot on with his assessment yesterday and today.
Longtrail,
We need to think rationally about these defenses. Walls have been an effective component in many times and places – but only when combined with other measures. They work only with people to project power in front of the wall and patrol behind it (to catch those that penetrate it). Economic measures and internal defenses are needed as well.
Agreed Larry. All other components are in place except a wall. There are P-3 people sniffers flying from the Texas Gulf Coast to San Diego. There are towers with sensors and cameras. There are Predator Drones and Blackhawk Helos. Border Patrol is on the ground in trucks, on horseback and on foot.
How do I know this? Experience. I lived in Arizona for 17 years. Since 1995 I’ve been returning periodically to work on a project within sight of the border. A few times I camped out alone. Since I support HDS/Border, I could sleep peacefully while they watched over me.
I have a book suggestion. Read 60 Miles of Border by Terry Fitzpatrick. Terry is also known as Grumpy Gringo which is the name of his cigar shop in Tubac, AZ. He has 30 years experience in Customs/Border Patrol. You can order the book through Grumpy Gringo website.
Longtrail,
Thanks for the first person reporting and the book recommendation!
I would like to point out that India has built a wall all the way round Bangladesh, and for the 30% that is water has patrol boats, so when the left says NO to a wall ask them why they say nothing about India’s wall.
For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh%E2%80%93India_border
A Silent Invasion, by Clive Hamilton sums up Australian situation.
I work in education with increasingly solely Chinese “international Students”, the attitude has changed to one of aggression, pro CCP and anti West. Breaking the Australian link to the US is a major aim for them now. University management only sees the money and increasingly pointless research to increase their careers. Most are childless so don’t care about our children and grandchildren paying for it all.
In an economic war, all consumers are warriors, the simplest first step must be to realise this, China is bullying the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia into giving up their fishing rights and the part of the South Sea they used to own (it is gone now). We can switch to buying from these countries and not China, Better always is to buy from our Western selves. With some effort my family has gone form 50% Chinese made products to about 5% in a month and it costs no more, All my clothes are made in Australia or purchased from a Charity clothes shop, last week I replaced tyres on my Ford Mondeo (made in Thailand) it didn’t take long to find tyres made in Malaysia, K&N oil filter, Australian oil and so on.
I was in California two years ago with my family visiting my wife’s US side of the family, I had this conversation then, actually it was the American who was saying he has gone to US only products wherever possible, it costs a bit more, but not too much more, his wife said if we supported the potential allies in Asia with our purchases, it was quite easy.
If every reader followed this buying pattern and told all their family and friends about it, we could make a huge first step, cutting off export income, increasing employment at home are key components in funding a wall of security (it will take tax dollars). If our Governments don’t do something we at least can start. I have five families buying from us and allies only wherever possible.
This is one of the ways the American Patriots organized against the British prior to 1776. If your friend has a list of American brands, I’d love to see it.
Academics are complete traitors.
PRCD,
“Academics are complete traitors.”
I have been very slow to see that a big fraction of America’s academics hate our culture and work to destroy it.
Does the big media fuss over the misrepresented crying child show how America has changed … or how American media has changed?
When Bill Clinton’s goons burned children to death at Waco in 1993, did we see such a media outcry about the horrible killing of American children? When Bill Clinton’s goons broke into an American home in 2000 and snatched little Elian Gonzalez to send him back to Castro’s hellish island, did we see such a media outcry about the abuse of a refugee child? When Barrack Obama’s regime separated illegal immigrant children from their parents and confined them to cages little more than a year ago, did the media break down in tears?
We all know what the difference between then and now is.
Mr. Lind has a good point about the Left’s attempted deliberate feminization of US society as a means to a nefarious end — but we should not read too much into the tears of the Left’s media arm. Polls seem to show that the media and Congress are competing for the position of least respected institution in the US.
Bottom line is that America is doing better than the Left’s media would like us to believe; and the media is doing much worse than the media itself wants to believe.
Gavin,
Now that’s a provocative thought! Clearly, as you show, journalists use narratives to advance their partistan goals.
But that does not mean that Lind is wrong. Let’s try a counterfactural: if the news media had played up children’s sufferings at Clinton’s hands, how would the public have responded? I don’t know, but its worth some thought. Perhaps journalists are exploiting a new development, an evolution, in our collective nature.
“Polls seem to show that the media and Congress are competing for the position of least respected institution in the US.”
That’s the subject of tomorrow’s post. I think it is a symptom that we’re doing much worse than commonly believed.
Larry (if I may call you Larry) —
You raise a very interesting question about what public reaction to the abuse of children would have been if the media had been as negative in their coverage of Clinton as they are in their coverage of President Trump. My recollection is that media coverage of those outrages during the Clinton Administration was largely pro-Government, pro-Clinton. We can only speculate on what the public reaction would have been if the coverage at the time had been different. But we can observe public reaction to the media today.
When travelling through US airports over the last few years, I have been struck by the behavior of my fellow passengers — a slice of the public. There are monitors blasting CNN everywhere — and at least 99% of the people in the airport ignore those monitors. People sit with their backs to the screens! Even though they are a captive audience, with not much else to occupy their time. This is particularly surprising, since a significant slice of that captive airport audience could be expected to be Democrat voters — and the pro-Democrat bias of CNN is no secret.
One of the big changes over time between the Clinton era and today has been the dramatic decline in the influence of the media. Media reporting can no longer be considered a reliable barometer of broad public opinion in the US. This makes it much harder for us all to get a sense of which way the wind is blowing — and how hard it is blowing.
Gavin,
I agree! It’s something I’ve written about during the past decade: the politicization of the news media is a gamble for an industry whose economics are weakening. Perhaps they see the success of Fox News as the future?
It’s not my business (other people’s biz often look simple), but from my cheap seats in the bleachers the news biz look ripe for disruption.
“Economic measures and internal defenses are needed as well.”
Let’s talk about economic measures and internal defenses. What about an increase in the minimum wage to give business less of an incentive to bring in cheap labor? Maybe it would be easier to limit demand than supply.
The Man,
“What about an increase in the minimum wage to give business less of an incentive to bring in cheap labor?”
That’s original thinking! I hadn’t connected the two issues.
Mr. Lind grossly oversimplifies Rome’s doomed interactions with barbarians. The empire had a long history of successfully integrating various peoples into their empire. To point out the most obvious example, the Battle of Adrianople only came about because of the corruption of roman officials in managing (more specifically providing nothing) for the settlement of the Goths. It turns out that when you break promises and starve a people they stop taking it sooner or later. In other words, massive immigration flows wasn’t the problem; corrupt, incompetent handling of those flows was.
This isn’t to say that Mr. Lind’s broader point is wrong, though I think we’d be better off say working to improve South/Central America where they have less reason to come. (even if only in the negative sense of ending the drug war/not actively overthrowing governments) I just think when people make historical analogies it is necessary to understand as full a scope of the comparison as possible. (though I also admit that you have to draw the line somewhere, since otherwise you descend into squabbles over whether the Huns were glorified raiders or crucial parts in the fall of the Western Empire)
The Murr,
(1) “Mr. Lind grossly oversimplifies Rome’s doomed interactions with barbarians.”
I don’t think that’s fair. It is a glancing mention, providing historical context, in a thousand word essay. God could not avoid “oversimplification” when doing this.
More broadly, essays get two critiques. I automatically reject both as daft. (1) It’s an “oversimplification”, as if brief essays can do anything else on subjects about which long books have been written. (2) It “doesn’t mention X”, as if a brief essay can mention every relevant subject.
(2) “I think we’d be better off say working to improve South/Central America where they have less reason to come”
I doubt that is realistic. There is near zero evidence that foreign aid has substantially improved the many failed states that have gotten it (the more functional the recipient society, the more useful is aid — in general). That applies to aid by both gov and NGOs. Perhaps taking them over as colonies might work, although the history of colonization suggests otherwise.
The Murr,
Too much going on here. I edited my comment for courtesy.
This opinion piece is shot through wit errors.
William,
While we thank you for sharing, that’s a useless comment unless you give specifics. Otherwise readers assume you don’t like the conclusions so are just screaming in protest. Noise.
Larry, I reread the article, and he makes the reference multiple times throughout so it’s more than a glancing reference. I get the need for simplification, (I did mention it in my comment, though in the wrong place and not well on a second reading) so I guess I’m arguing his analogy is wrong. The issue isn’t massive migration, it’s badly managed massive migration, and in the context of the immigration argument that is a key idea.
And on foreign aid, I take your point, which is why my examples weren’t aid but maybe stopping with the coups and occasional sending in of the marines, among other things.
The Murr,
(1) “he makes the reference multiple times throughout so it’s more than a glancing reference.”
Here are all of Lind’s refs to Rome in this article. More accurate, both of his refs. Total: 16 words.
(2) “but maybe stopping with the coups and occasional sending in of the marines, among other things.”
Do you seriously believe that Mexico’s current state would be better if we “stopped with the coups and sending the Marines”? Like your ref to us “working to improve”, that does not seem serious to me.
Those are their nations. I doubt they want our advice or interference to make their nations better. They want money, but a long history shows that foreign aid is usually some combination of wasted (corruptly and/or incompetently spent) or counterproductive (eg, our ag aid, trashing their farmers).
PRCD and Larry Kummer, Editor
““Academics are complete traitors.”
I have been very slow to see that a big fraction of America’s academics hate our culture and work to destroy it.”
Replace America’s academics with Western Academics for, I fear the level of issue we face. I run a small business and work casually in a University and training Companies, in the training companies we mainly are multicultural and open, but pro Australia (and western values), in the University it is very socialist (mainly) and I know anything I say about buying Australia will be called racist and right wing.
I am less inclined to be silenced by this accusation as I get older and build up more income generating assets, as loose my work is the sanction that would be used. I work late Wednesday and Thursday in evening training, I get a take away from a loyal Chinese Australian family business on the way from work regularly, I know most products made in Australia will have a larger than the general population of non whites in the workforce, jobs help integration and reward loyalty.
Maybe I am wrong and being tricked, but an increased degree of National Economics is no bad thing, I see the multiplier effect is no longer taught in economics and I have been told not to discuss it.
My previous car was a Mitsubishi Magna assembled in Australia and I greatly regret our Government letting Mitsubishi, Toyota, Ford and GM leave Australia. We should have helped with re-tooling for small versions and made them the cars driven by all Federal and State Government staff.
The first reference is 54 words: “We would do well to remember that the barbarians who overwhelmed and destroyed the Roman Empire were immigrants. With the exception of the Vandals, most of them did not come to destroy the Empire. They were trying to move in and enjoy its benefits. But they came in such numbers that Rome was overwhelmed.” The second is a handful, but word count is a seriously silly thing to argue about. His article is two parts, the problem of massive migration, and current and past responses to massive migration. When I read the first part of the article, the crux of his identification of the problem of migration is the 3rd and 4th paragraph which are both built on a comparison to Rome. Now if you think Mr. Lind’s metaphor is correct and I’m wrong, that’s different. But I think your argument is that the Rome metaphor is irrelevant and I disagree with that assessment.
On the second point I think I am not communicating clearly. My examples were targeted at our habit of overthrowing/undermining lawfully elected governments in South and Central America. I was pushing the very point you make in your last paragraph: “…I doubt they want our advice or interference to make their nations better.” All of my examples, in both comments were some flavor of interference. I am not arguing that we should actively try to make the world a better place, I am arguing that we should stop actively making it worse. (I need to do a better job of organizing my initial comments, or in other words, if I’d had more time, I’d have written less)