It’s no secret that Donald Trump wants to put 2,000–4,000 troops on the U.S.–Mexico border. And that’s because he believes that the “security of the United States is imperiled by a drastic surge of illegal activity on the southern border.”
We love hearing Doug Casey’s take on these controversial issues, so we’re sharing editor Justin Spittler’s conversation with him on the topic.
What do you make of this, Doug? Will deploying thousands of troops to the border curb illegal immigration?
Well, it looks like what could have been a crisis has been temporarily defused. What might have been thousands of migrants rushing the border has apparently dwindled to a few stragglers. A non-event.
But troubles on the Mexican border have a long and colorful pedigree. Especially starting from around 1912–1918. For one thing, one of my favorite authors, Ambrose Bierce, went to join Pancho Villa’s forces in 1913. He was in his 70s, and it was his way of checking out.
There were some great movies made about that time and place, as well. , with Burt Lancaster. , with Burt Lancaster and Lee Marvin. And possibly my personal all-time favorite, , with William Holden. There’s even a fun comedy about the era, , with Steve Martin.
In those days the border was a more fluid concept. In 1917, Pershing lead 5,000 US cavalrymen deep into Mexico, chasing Villa after a raid he made into the US. That was about the time of the famous Zimmerman telegram, where the Germans promised help getting Texas, New Mexico and Arizona back to Mexico, if the Mexicans declared war on the US. That was one reason the Americans entered WW1. No matter… the Mexicans will get that land back without a formal attack.
Interesting indeed. But back to the current situation…
Right. Pershing and horse soldiers are long gone. Let me start by saying that the national guardsmen Trump proposes are basically weekend soldiers. These guys would rather be at home. They’d rather be working their day jobs. They’d rather spend time with their families. They’re not going to be happy about this.
Plus, they’re unlikely to serve any useful purpose. Think about it. If they’re confronted by a large group of migrants, how are they going to stop them? Is it going to turn into a game of Red Rover? Or maybe a pushing contest?
The only way they could stop a big group of migrants crossing the border is with real violence. But they won’t do that. That won’t happen.
In other words, a large group of say 10,000 to 20,000 people, in unison, could easily walk across the border. Plus, understand that the people behind this mass migration aren’t stupid. They understand the dynamics. They know that a hundred migrants would just be a nuisance, to be rounded up and put in jail. You need the military principle of mass.
Next time, maybe they’ll show up to the border with 50,000 people. That would be the equivalent of the Goths at Adrianople. That was 378 AD. After that, the barbarians totally inundated the Roman Empire from every angle. And in a generation they controlled every aspect of the Empire.
If I wanted to collapse the US, that’s how I’d do it. Who needs the risks and expense of a conventional war? It would be neither hard nor very expensive to get a couple hundred thousand Salvadoreans, Hondurans, and what-have-you—not to mention Mexicans—to just human wave across the border. That would show the US is incapable of stopping anybody—except harassing some polite European tourists in airports, or polite Canadians driving across by car.
Of course, there’d be a counter reaction. But things could easily spin out of control.
And who do you think is behind all of this?
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are certainly behind these migrants crossing the border. Poor peasants from Central America, or wherever—poor people and miscreants will show up from all over the world once the cat’s out of the bag—can’t act en masse. Today these people couldn’t cross the American border on their own. Or at most in onesies and twosies.
Migrants don’t have the resources to support themselves. So they’re obviously getting help and funding from outside sources. I suspect it’s coming from NGOs. These people are politically and psychologically committed to destroying Western Civilization. And the average American or European has become so guilt-ridden, self-effacing, and philosophically corrupt that they welcome them.
So, again, what they’ll try is sending 10,000, 50,000, or 200,000 people across the border. You couldn’t stop that many people. I don’t care if Trump puts up the National Guard; that will just add to the embarrassment. They’d just walk across the border, unless they’re machine-gunned. But the Guard is obviously not going to do that.
I’d also gather as many pregnant women into the migrants as possible, both to create sympathetic photo-ops for the invading mob, and so their children could act as anchor babies. It would create chaos, which is exactly the desired effect.
Most people don’t realize that the invasion that followed the Battle of Adrianople brought the Roman Empire to its knees within 30 years… They think that Rome fell in 476 AD, but that’s actually a meaningless date. It collapsed 60 or 70 years earlier, when the migrants totally washed everything away. Rome was just a shadow of its old self by the late Third Century. The army was mostly foreigners. Being a citizen no longer meant much. The government was bankrupt. The old values were being replaced by a new religion. There’s much more to be said. I suggest you look at a long article I did on this in December 2013 here.
That exact same thing could happen in the States. And I don’t doubt that someone’s planning that already.
Yeah, I’ve read a lot about NGOs doing the same thing in Europe. They’re literally moving Africans by the boatload to Europe, specifically Italy.
These people have to be getting assistance. It’s not like they possess outboard motors, sails, or the skills to cross the Mediterranean. That’s serious business. So, they’re obviously getting help. But this has been happening for years.
But who’s behind all this? Where’s the money coming from? We need to ask ourselves these questions because NGOs are destroying Western civilization. They’re run by busybodies looking to create chaos. And it’s in the interests of “charity.” Giving them money makes you a “philanthropist.”
Why would they want to do that?
It’s mostly a question of psychological aberration. Combined with perverse and bent philosophies. Universities today are filled with Marxist professors who despise Western civilization. Despite the fact Western civilization has brought us almost all the good things in life.
It’s responsible for basically 100% of the world’s great literature, and 100% of the world’s great music. Free markets. Individualism. Liberty. The concept of human rights. The rule of law. Philosophy. Science. Technology. Almost all the noble ideas in the world. There are, to be sure, a few worthwhile things from other cultures. It’s been said that East minus West equals zero, but that’s going too far. I’m a fan of yoga, Taoism, and Oriental cuisine.
Why would anyone want to destroy it? It’s a complete mystery to me. I don’t know what’s going on in these people’s heads. But I’ve spoken to people who hate Western civilization, and they’re apparently sincere about what they’re doing.
So, maybe they’re just stupid. Look, I don’t care what their IQ score may be. These people are stupid on a very basic level.
What do you mean by that?
Well, we first need to define the word “stupid.” As I’ve said before, the best definition is an unwitting tendency to self-destruction; that’s what these people suffer from. Why? Perhaps they’re really very unhappy with themselves, but don’t have the courage or enough honest introspection to just put a gun to their heads. Hmm… maybe that’s another reason they’re universally antigun.
There’s also a difference between intelligence and wisdom that’s lost on most people. Wisdom is the ability to calculate not just the immediate and direct consequences of actions. It doesn’t take much wisdom to make that calculation. The average six-year-old can do this. It’s not very deep.
But you also must be able to contemplate the indirect and delayed consequences of your actions. And the people who run these NGOs seem incapable of that. They have absolutely no wisdom.
That makes them stupid in my book. You could also say that they’re evil. But that word has also been discredited. A lot of religious types like to bandy it about. Their idea of “evil” is whatever goes against their god.
But I’ve read the Bible. I’ve read the Quran. And I don’t think what passes for evil in those religious texts washes, quite frankly. To me, evil is being purposely destructive. And that’s what a lot of people who join these NGOs are.
Sure, they pretend to be nice. They act like they’re doing all these wonderful things but they’re destroying civilization. They just can’t see it because they lack wisdom.
The people populating NGOs and governments aren’t necessarily evil—even Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin felt they were good guys, doing the right thing. They’re just thoughtless and stupid.
What about a desire for power control? It seems like that’s why a lot of people get involved in government and organizations like NGOs. They believe they’re best suited to shape society.
You’re absolutely right. And they take control of society in many ways. They’re much more interested in controlling other people than they are in controlling physical things, however.
Many of these same people naturally find their way into government. They enjoy pushing their fellows around. But, surprisingly to me, anyway, the average person seems to want that. They want a strong leader. They like hierarchy. They don’t mind being under the control of other people.
All these socialists, social democrats, liberals, Democrats—their names are legion—think they’re doing the right thing. They think they’re being moral. And you can’t convince them otherwise. Intellectual arguments are useless against these people. It’s a psychological problem, not an intellectual one.
You can’t make an intellectual argument to a mob.
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today, Doug.
If you can’t get enough of Doug’s controversial, brutally honest insights, check out his new book: for more.