William Lind: a crying child opens our borders

Summary: William Lind looks at immigration, a top public policy challenge of our time. Open borders can irrevocably change a nation in a few generations, and America is already far down this road.  Lind discusses one factor governing our choices.

“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.”
— Jean Raspail, looking at the Mediterranean from the French Riviera in 1972 From the 2011 introduction to The Camp of the Saints.

Migrant Caravan from Central America
Caravan from Honduras. AP Photo/Moises Castillo.

The Crying Child.

By William S. Lind.
From Traditional Right • 30 June 2018.
Posted with his generous permission. Graphics added.

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.

Burning tires protest at US Embassy in support of Honduras caravan
Honduras protesters burn tires at the US embassy In Tegucigalpa during a march in support of the caravan.

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.  We need every such disincentive we can devise.  If the policy seemed cruel – gain, 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 {see Wkipedia and see below}.  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.


Editor’s comment

All of Honduras wants to come here.
— Reina Madrid, in the caravan coming to the United States. Seldom mentioned: most of the migrants are young men.

Lind’s essay brings together several important threads in American society. These will not work well for us.

  • The increased emotionalism – often irrational – that makes it easy for our leaders to manipulate us.
  • Our inability to formulate rational public policy in response to a changing world.
  • And, most important, the lethal public policy mixture of open borders, multiculturalism (no encouragement to assimilate), and a welfare state.

Of course, our ruling elites are unmoved by crying children (whether American or foreign). That Congress has not authorized the expansion of the wall – despite its GOP majority – shows the bipartisan nature of our open borders policy. Open borders serves the political interests of the Democrat’s leaders (more voters, wrecking American culture) and the economic interests of the plutocrats who own the Republican Party. After November, the odds of Congress approving the wall will decrease (the GOP has a faction wanting the borders closed; the Democrats have a faction wanting them opened even more).

More broadly, is it rational for us to be stripping underdeveloped people of their best educated (e.g., doctors) – and attempt to take in the limitless number of their poorest? How can that work? Also, do the people of a nation have a responsibility to fix their own society? Obsessed with photos of crying children, we cannot not consider these questions.

William Lind

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 to 1976 and held a similar position with Senator Gary Hart of Colorado from 1977 to 1986. See his bio at Wikipedia

Mr. Lind is author of the Maneuver Warfare Handbook (1985), co-author with Gary Hart of America Can Win: The Case for Military Reform (1986), and co-author with William H. Marshner of Cultural Conservatism: Toward a New National Agenda (1987).

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. See his other articles about a broad range of subjects…

  1. His posts at TraditionalRight.
  2. His articles about geopolitics at The American Conservative.
  3. 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 liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about immigration, about Reforming America: steps to new politics, and especially these …

  1. Essential reading about hidden historyThe history of immigration and America, lost amidst the more useful myths.
  2. ImportantThe lies about immigration keeping the borders open.
  3. Migration from the south into America: new people, new foods, new political systems.
  4. Immigration as a reverse election: our leaders get a new people.
  5. Look at immigration policy to see our government respond to its masters.
  6. The numbers about immigration that fuel Trump’s campaign.
  7. The smoke & fire of the new Sweden is our future.
  8. ImportantDiversity is a grand experiment. We’re the lab rats.
  9. The Democrats will open the borders & make a New America.

The book from 1973 by one who saw this coming

Camp of the Saints
Aailable at Amazon.

The Camp of the Saints.

By Jean Raspail (1973).

Raspail is a French author and explorer (see Wikipedia).

One hundred ships leave a squalid Third World slum, crammed with hungry, filthy, desperate people bound for Europe. How would people of the guilt-ridden West react. Written as a dystopian novel in 1973, It is today’s present and future. See Wikipedia for details. The author writes in the preface…

“I had wanted to write a lengthy preface to explain my position and show that this is no wild-eyed dream; that even if the specific action, symbolic as it is, may seem far-fetched, the fact remains that we are inevitably heading for something of the sort. But what good would it do?

“I should at least point out, though, that many of the texts I have put into my characters’ mouths or pens – editorials, speeches, pastoral letters, laws, news stories, statements of every description – are, in fact, authentic. Perhaps the reader will spot them as they go by. In terms of the fictional situation I have presented, they become all the more revealing.”

For more about the book, see “The Relevance Of Raspail, the Visionary French Novelist Saw It Coming” by Martin Witkerk at Vdare.

20 thoughts on “William Lind: a crying child opens our borders”

  1. Larry Kummer, Editor

    Honduran migrants heading in a caravan to the US storm across the Guatemala-Mexico international border bridge after tearing down the gate in Ciudad Hidalgo (Chiapas state, Mexico) on 19 October 2018. Note the man on the right wearing a “The Future Is Female” shirt (in English). Where did he get it?

    Photo: PEDRO PARDO/AFP/Getty Images.

    Migrants storm into Mexico

  2. As the song goes: ‘you ain’t seen nothing yet.’ Wait till they manage to push a column through and the bung comes unstuck, it will be a flood not just from Central America. There are a 100 m Africans waiting for a green light.
    If Trump seriously thinks that this is a threat why not put the Army Corp of Engineers to build a barrier? After all that is what they did when the Mississippi flooded N.O.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      “As the song goes: ‘you ain’t seen nothing yet.’ ”

      I agree. First, a small caravan gets thru the border. Then this large one. Then we’ll be getting many caravans.

      “If Trump seriously thinks that this is a threat why not put the Army Corp of Engineers to build a barrier? ”

      Trump is president. Despite Liberals confidently stated delusions, he operates within the law. Building a wall requires an appropriation of money by Congress for construction costs and to buy the land. Some of it will require exercise of eminent domain to acquire.

      That Congress has not authorized the expansion of the wall — despite its GOP majority — shows the bipartisan nature of our open borders policy. After November, the odds of Congress approving the wall will drop – a lot.

  3. Such an interesting mix of minds in the mashup here. See the theoreticians (See Editor’s Note) reacting to the tactical vexing that Lind dishes … “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.” … and still nothing much practical to go on.

    The problem is that, “The here and now is here and now!” We love you ole’ Maximus, but the time for contemplating, “…important threads in American society” is over for the moment. The “now” we’re on is the cusp of a blood letting reminiscent of our own civil war.

    As for this Ole’ Buzzard’s advice, “Store guns, ammo, food and hunker down!”

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      “The “now” we’re on is the cusp of a blood letting reminiscent of our own civil war.”

      Yes, there are always people amongst us eager for civil war. The success of America has resulted from our defeat of you folks – with one exception. That’s why we’re not Latin America or Africa.

      I believe that we will continue to defeat you and your brothers (you fly different flags, but are cousins under the skin).

      1. Whoa there! I hope the “you” and “you” is not intended to mean “me” and “me?” For if it were so, you’ve misunderstood the “me.” No hankering for blood letting of any kind other than that which is absolutely necessary to protect me and mine! As to warring … we’ve been doing so with reckless and lawless abandon across the Globe for decades. Doing so in order to fill the bottomless “gut” of a Military Industrial Complex and the Goodfellas in the Swamp. Me for warring? You’ve put that sorry saddle on the wrong hoss’ Ole’ Maximus. s/ The Ole’ Buzzard

      2. Larry Kummer, Editor

        The Buzzard,

        We’re not on the cusp of “blood-letting like the civil war.” There is zero evidence of that. But now, as always, there are people saying such things. Violent conflicts begin with such polarizing and poisonous rhetoric. It’s the equivalent to yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, which is why those people are our enemies. Every generation has to suppress them, like the fight against diphtheria and other endemic diseases.

        Latin American and Africa provide ample evidence of the result of failure to suppress such people.

  4. I agree that some form/s of immigration control are necessary, but I think a virtual “high tech” border–rather than a literal physical wall–already is, or will likely soon be, more tech feasible and cost-effective, as well as more effective in controlling illegal immigration. But as you said, as long as lax immigration enforcement and laws are in the self-interest of the Demo-publican ruling class (Ds who want more voters, and Rs who want more cheap labor), a wall will never be built, much less be paid for by the Mexican government.

    But I take issue with what I think is Lind’s simplistic assertion that MAGA Nation xenophobes are the real grown-ups in the room. Based on my online and in-person interaction with Trump supporters, I can count on one hand those who have been truly interested in rational, independent, and original thought, and who were capable of making any arguments to support their opinions–almost always expressed as ostensibly self-evidence “facts”–that have been more sophisticated–aka more “adult”–than a verbal playground name-calling food fight, or completely memorized and regurgitated (almost verbatim, in some cases) talking points they have gleaned from Faux Noise and/or some other lessor known clones from the Alt-Right media universe.

    In short, nearly every tough-talking MAGA Nation pants-wetter I have personally encountered has been just that. If anyone they perceive as “Lib-tard Snowflakes” verbally punch them in the mouth, they squeal like stuck pigs and play the victim card–just like the pearl-clutching drama queens whining about the unarmed female mobs wearing pink pussy hats screaming at Republicans being a “threat to the nation.”

    So whatever merit Lind’s pov might have, I think his over-the-top claims that MAGA chuckleheads are the real saviors of the nation leads me to believe that he, too, may simply be a somewhat more erudite and closeted whiny pants-wetter.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      “Based on my online and in-person interaction with Trump supporters, I can count on one hand those who have been truly interested in rational, independent, and original thought,”

      You’re moving in slow company, or perhaps smarter conservatives don’t bother talking with you.

      “In short, nearly every tough-talking MAGA Nation pants-wetter …”

      Yes, smart conservatives are right to avoid talking to you. Doctor, examine thyself.

    2. Larry Kummer, Editor


      “I agree that some form/s of immigration control are necessary, but I think a virtual “high tech” border–rather than a literal physical wall–already is, or will likely soon be, more tech feasible and cost-effective,”

      Are you a civil engineer, or have some relevant training and experience to make such a confident statement?

  5. OK we set up a virtual wall with electronic surveillance and then what we send individual border control cars to round them up or .. I know we get some drones and …. sorry editor couldn’t resist it..

    The issue over the next five to ten years will be numbers, Western nations are hugely in debt, ageing fast and slowing productivity wise, with a few exceptions.

    My fear is that the immigration numbers are so great they spill over into even more severly falling wages, reduced welfare and still more and more segregated cities, at that point the society looks like the prison yard with all the different gangs, leaving us no alternative, but to joining one, at least at the lower levels. The top may hold onto power and get even richer or the pitch forks might come for them. There are many unpleasant variables, the strength to say OK, let’s slow down immigration, have more help to overseas nations and just work out what to do, is needed.

    What does a diesel or solar water pump cost to set up or to help with farming in a changing climate, surely less than the cost of the bombs we drop now.

    Dropping bombs on a nation, forcing them to flee and then taking them in as refugees to work in a way they are exploited and left to live in the sub-standard housing might not breed Patriots, at least on mass.

    The Alt Right and the Antifa are on the rise a la 1930’s and it worries me, so I apologise for the lack of clear thread.
    I dislike both groups in their extremes, but I will say I have also seen them, and both have far too many in their ranks that are armed and not afraid to fight. Watch a rally and one thing you can’t say about their confrontations is not they are full of cowards, overly composed of lunatics at times, but cowards no.

    As a suggestion, a re-print of an article by Dinesh D’Souza would be a good position to debate over (with his permission of course).

    Great article thanks.

    1. Dear JAG, Re your interest in debating D’Souza’s pov, take a look at this video if you have the time and interest, and let me know if you still think DD’s thinking would be a useful framework for debate. Cenk Uyger of “The Young Turks” summarizes his past debates with Ann Coulter, DD, and Ben Shapiro, and contrasts them to his debate this year with Tucker Carlson.


  6. Larry, “smart conservatives” don’t avoid talking to me, and I have no idea why you would leap to such an under-informed conclusion based only on my “colorful” language above used to describe what I perceive as the majority of Trump’s blind-faith true believers, based on my personal interaction with them. I agree it is unlikely I will encounter many such SCs on social media, but I also contend that most “smart conservatives” also don’t reside in MAGA Nation.

    So unless Lind, or you, think he epitomizes smart conservatives who are going to save the nation–and that he has an army of followers just like him who will come to our rescue–then I would have to agree to disagree with you and him because, IMO, the so-called “leaders” idolized by MAGA nation are not anything close to the smartest conservatives in the nation. Nor do SCs represent anything close to the majority of them, IMO.

    Re “Just a guy”, his initial comment above immediately identified what I would regard as the most obvious of all possible high-tech ways to protect the border–all of which would be much more tech feasible and cost-effective compared to literally building anything close to an impenetrable real wall along those parts of the 2,000 mile long US-Mexican border which are not impassible due to topography alone, IMO.

    And just like most of your opinions, my opinion is not based on technical expertise in the subject matter under discussion. It is based on 35 years of continual ongoing identification and analysis of a wide range of current, emerging, and potential future STEEP (socio-cultural, technological, economic, environmental, and political-legal) threats and opportunities, and development of a wider and longer-term range of alternative future STEEP scenarios based on the actual and potential interplay of same.

    I also suspect “Just a guy” claims no special expertise on this subject, but I think he is almost completely on point regarding his initial thoughts about how to more proactively deal with a worst-case immigration scenario. For example: “What does a diesel or solar water pump cost to set up to help with farming in a changing climate, surely less than the cost of the bombs we drop now.”

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      “smart conservatives” don’t avoid talking to me”

      Read what you wrote. That’s exactly what you described. I am, however, impressed by your self-esteem!

    2. Larry Kummer, Editor, said:


      “smart conservatives” don’t avoid talking to me”

      “Read what you wrote. That’s exactly what you described. I am, however, impressed by your self-esteem!”

      Sorry, Larry, I think you need to either dumb down–or bulk up–your interpretations of my comments to ensure they are sufficiently idiot-proof for me! Or, as an alternative, perhaps I should not have confused you by embedding the point I think you may be missing in a larger multi-faceted context.

      In my experience, those who self-identify as members of MAGA Nation–many of whom would readily claim to also be alumni of the Tea Party movement–have not been shy in terms of using verbal and physical belligerence as a first resort, rather than a last one. Hence the widespread use in MAGA Nation of the epithet “Libtard snowflakes” and my subsequent labeling them as “tough-talking”.

      But now, perhaps ever since Congressman Scalise was shot last year, the same crowd–or perhaps at least their wannabe leaders–have decided playing the victim card could be a useful position to stake out politically, and now whine constantly about how ostensibly afraid they are of what they now apparently perceive as big, bad, bad-ass mobs of unarmed Libtard snowflakes. Hence my use of the descriptor “pants-wetters”.

      The combination of these two descriptions of MAGA Nation results in what may seem like my paradoxical and/or oxymoronic descriptor: “tough-talking pants-wetters.”

      Assuming I have sufficiently clarified that sub-point, I am more interested in your explanation, or lack of same, regarding who you perceive to constitute the “smart conservative” army that Lind, and/or you, think Lind could be leading to “save the nation.”

      PS – You also still have no factual basis for concluding “smart conservatives” avoid talking to me–unless,of course, you claim some sort of clairvoyance. But if you subsequently discover any empirical basis for that subjective perception, please feel free to share it.

  7. Starting well over 15 years ago, I read a fair amount of Lind’s work on 4GW and was enriched by the his depth of knowledge and ability to explain to a novice, the intricacies of military history, tactics, strategy, etc. At some point I started to note social commentary creeping into his topic. Then I began looking into the ideology of the paleo-conservative and other flavors of the splintering conservative movement. Eventually, Lind’s writing, at least what I was seeing, often through this blog, degenerated into highfalutin’ white supremacy that ignored history and rejected important and inconvenient facts. Bemoaning an impending mass migration manifested by climate change is chutzpah of the highest degree. China’s and India’s recent efforts notwithstanding, the US by a longshot, has belched the filth into the air that is causing climate change. The US, similarly, for decades has been better placed to acknowledge, stop, and reverse the effects of climate change but has steadfastly refused, condemning the world to the consequences of that suicidal decision. And now Lind and his ilk complain about the lumpen hordes heading north to cool off.

    Seems to me it’s Lind who is the whiny bedwetter here because he refuses to confront the real reason all of this is happening because he doesn’t want to admit his role in it nor make the effort to address the problems. He just complains about the consequences. Walls will not stem the tides be they the advancing sea of water or the advancing sea of humanity. And bullets won’t do it either, as much as he might like them deployed.

    Stop crying about it and apply the same strength of logic and ingenuity to rebuild a world we’re coming perilously close to destroying.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      “into highfalutin’ white supremacy that ignored history and rejected important and inconvenient facts.”

      That reads like a rant. Can you provide specifics?

      “Bemoaning an impending mass migration manifested by climate change is chutzpah of the highest degree.”

      Your first and only specific is doubly wrong. It’s not an “impending” mass migration. It is happening now, and climate change is not a cause. The IPCC’s reports are quite clear that there has been only small warming (vs. normal variation over time), that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010” (i.e., natural factors were also responsible, such as that causing the warming of ~1850 – 1950) – and it has had few other visible effects on climate – so far.

      “Stop crying about it and apply the same strength of logic and ingenuity to rebuild a world we’re coming perilously close to destroying.”

      There is little evidence for that. The worst case in IPCC’s AR5 report, RCP8.5, does not “destroy” the world” – and is (as a worst case should be) highly unlikely.

      I suggest that you read the IPCC reports, or those by the major climate agencies, to learn something about climate change – and read less by doomsters. The excepts and links in these posts will introduce you their works, supplemented by the peer-review literature.

      1. Larry Kummer, Editor


        “Thanks for the reply to the driveler.”

        That’s harsh. As I’ve said, “we’re ignorant because we read the news.” Trying to understand climate science by reading the news accounts about it is like trying to understand physics by watching Looney Toons cartoons. The “Laws of Cartoon Motion” are not the same as Newton’s.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: