Unarmed invasion targets our goodwill

By Alan Keyes

In articles published earlier this week (read them here and here), I wrote about the strategic implications of Mexico’s involvement with the so-called refugee caravan that was making its way through Mexico toward the U.S. border. According to the latest reports available as I write this, President Trump’s firm, timely warnings to the Mexican government, along with the actions he has ordered to underline them, have had the desired effect.

Much of the reporting on these events focuses on the anti-American storyline: “A group of people, fleeing from disorder and poverty in their home countries, demands entry into the United States. The group appears to be unarmed. It includes some women and children. Will they be given refuge, or will the ‘heartless’ Trump administration succeed in turning them back?”

Aside from the fact that it’s more likely to lure readers and viewers toward this or that media outlet, this blatantly tendentious storyboard fits the pattern of anti-Trump hostility that prevails in much of the information media. However, people with the will and capacity to resist drifting on that propaganda tide will wonder how the refugee caravan is being funded and organized.  They’ll react to the name (“People without Borders”) of the organization mentioned as the support group for the caravan. Perhaps they’ll note that the group echoes the ideology, goals and methods of the forces promoting the refugee tide that is already testing the character and cohesion of all the nations of Europe.

With this in mind, It makes no sense to focus narrowly on the story of refugees demanding entry into the United States, as a demand of necessitous “right.” We need to enlarge this view, to see how it fits into the bigger picture of elitist forces, acting throughout the world, which seek consciously to foster and exploit crises. They aim to promote an agenda that targets the existence of any and all nations. And it does so in the context of an ideology that questions the very idea of nationhood. This is an ideology that presumes to erase human diversity, an ideology that intends to replace the co-operative union of self-governed and diverse peoples, respected as such, with the totalitarian unity of elitist rule. To this end, it shrewdly employs deceit and the contrivance of material scarcity, produced and disseminated by dint of superior power – power deployed without regard to individual natural right or any other claim of moral conscience, be it personal or national.

The premises of right and justice that led our nation’s first patriots to declare their independence from Great Britain logically produced the sort of union the globalist elitist faction aims to dissolve and replace. To be sure, the people of the states comprising our union were not meant to belong to one or another of the peoples human experience engendered in other parts of the world.  But the U.S. Constitution leaves room for the people in any given state of the Union to forge bonds that reflect their conditions and experience. Therefore, the people living in Texas and the people living in Vermont are recognizably distinct, although recognizably American in their distinctiveness.

Extrapolated to the world as a whole, this foreshadows a world in which nations remain recognizably diverse, although recognizably human in spite of that diversity. Why are globalist elitist faction forces so hostile to this result? Why do they seek to exacerbate the lines of racial and ethnic division within our country, even though, in their vision of humanity’s future, people are supposed to supersede and thus erase them?

Authentic diversity implies lines of demarcation that deserve respect, even in the presence of an understanding which validates the existence of a whole that comprehends and yet transcends and even contradicts all possible diversity. In human affairs, this holistic understanding may assert itself in the totalitarian drive to remake the world in the image of one’s will, suppressing all the rest. But this assertiveness appears to require a critical mass of power, sufficient to breed the delusion that one can draw all things into conformity with oneself. This delusion has, in the past, driven people to amass great, and largely oppressive, empires.

A few such empires had sufficient wherewithal to dominate, for a time, some regions of the earth. But, just as a few in our era have been privileged, in person, to view the whole world from outer space, so a few may now be convinced that they have personally amassed the critical mass of power required to establish the first truly planetary empire.

People have asserted that Adolf Hitler used the weapons of democracy to destroy democracy. The United States provided the margin or power that ultimately defeated him. But were our material resources what mattered most in that victory? Or was it the self-confidence and national resolve – born of forging a union of different peoples without suppressing their differences – that gave us the experience needed to lead an alliance of quarrelsome nations to victory over forces that destructively hated the liberty that is essential to preserving those differences.

It was the primacy of moral purpose that sustained these indispensable elements of our morale. The present adversaries of our survival as a free people pay homage to this truth. Their strategy admits the fact that the indefeasible strength of our national will takes root from the integrity of our common sense of right. So, their strategy not only targets our material power. It seeks, above all, to lure us into using that power in ways they can depict as contrary to our moral sensibilities. With such duplicity, they aim to turn our common sense of right into a weapon against the common sense of decent purpose essential for the survival of our national identity.

With this in mind, our response to the elitist faction’s “refugee caravan” attack against our sovereignty as a people must be a contrapuntal interplay of sternly enacted warnings and actively conscientious co-operation. They say, “Good fences make good neighbors.” But aren’t good neighbors people who seek to mend their fences in ways that will improve conditions for all who live there? Our message to people of good conscience in Mexico and throughout the Western Hemisphere should be that we will defend our sovereignty against those who cooperate to attack us. But, with those willing to do so, we will seek mutually beneficial commerce and cooperation. People presently despoiled of hope will find more than refuge in the result. They will find themselves at home, living without fear, in countries no longer ruined by powerful elitists who recklessly pursue a ruthless agenda for global tyranny.

Media wishing to interview Alan Keyes, please contact [email protected].

Leave a Comment