In the decade prior to World War II, the organization that claimed the international mantle of virtue, The League of Nations, was plainly aware of, yet studiously ignored, the facts of Germany’s re-armament in violation of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles (ending World War I).
Winston Churchill warned in the 1930s of what was the then a prevalent form of political-correctness, an ignorant opposition to patriotism or national loyalty — both in academia and high office: “In this dark time the basest sentiments received acceptance or passed unchallenged by the responsible leaders of the political parties.”
Luckily he never experienced Facebook, BBC or the New York Times of today.
The lesson that should have been learned then, and is very relevant in today’s politically-correct- instant-media-outrage world is that when you pretend a real threat is non-existent, the whole country – and even the whole world — will pay a very high price sooner rather than later.
Likewise, the same is true today when a non-existent threat is claimed to be universal and pervasive.
Currently a tactic being utilized to prevent or suppress discussion of some very real threats to stability in America is simply an orchestrated smear campaign against those who raise the factual aspects of these problems.
The easiest, and most often dishonest, smear is to call a person or organization “racist,” “islamophobic,” “sexist,” “white privileged,” and etc. This is the rhetorical currency of the radical left that has infatuated the media and readers/viewers so inclined to believe them. Claiming something is “fear-mongering” is another way to appear to make an opinion less credible.
The abusers of our language now gleefully co-opt any term possible to convey an aura of outright evil on any opponent; sometimes subtle, sometimes not. If a portion of a comment can be taken out of context, edited or twisted to suit the malevolent purposes of the smear artist, it is then done enthusiastically.
Think hoaxer Jussie Smollet, or the serial liar/lawyer Michael Avenatti, both used complicit media attention to make claims of outright evil behavior against implied political opponents. This is not new to human behavior, but currently has become a very toxic go-to method for liberals/leftists and their allies.
In 1710, Jonathan Swift wrote “Besides, as the vilest writer has his readers, so the greatest liar has his believers; and it often happens, that if a lie be believ’d only an hour, it has done its work… .”
Swift would be horrified how effective Twitter has become at exactly this tactic.
A very good example of this of late is the false argument made regarding “border security” being a contrived “crisis” that is somehow being manufactured by President Trump as a divisive campaign issue. This canard has been repeated enough times by “journalists” that it deserves its own zip code.
It is beyond dishonest to suggest this issue is one to be solved with “better policy.” Just as in the 1930s, “better policy” ignores the evil behind the intentional coordinated efforts being made to drive tens of thousands of people to breach our border.
To cast this as a “moral imperative” is equally dishonest. Do you have locks on your car door, house or office?
Why?
Because the rule of law, which is the foundation of our representative republic, says you have the right to secure your property. How hypocritical is it then to suggest the nation itself not be allowed to control its borders by whatever means is required?
Who is really behind the caravans that are supposedly spontaneously occurring groups in the thousands, which are invading the Southern border region of America? Make no mistake, it is an invasion, and yes it is highly planned and orchestrated. You cannot move thousands of people, willing or not, over thousands of miles through several countries in Central America without a lot of money and organized effort behind it.
As far back as 2013 this exact aspect was identified as horrifying by a federal judge in U.S. v. Nava-Martinez.
For those who are willing to have their pre-conceived notions of the caravans ruined, watch the interview with documentary filmmaker Ami Horowitz.
One of the groups highly involved in organizing and publicizing these caravans of supposed “asylum seekers” is Pueblos Sin Frontera (“Peoples without Borders”). PSF’s primary activist, Rodrigo Abeja, has spearheaded these efforts for years, so this is not new.
Their goal is to undermine U.S. sovereignty by mobbing the southern border repeatedly, which is a leftist tactic developed by 1960s radicals Cloward and Piven. If the ensuing chaos results in grave political damage and economic depletion to America, the organizers and funders have achieved part of their goals. The Cloward-Piven strategy called for overloading the U.S. welfare system to promote economic and systemic collapse and crisis. What is being forced onto the Southern border region is exactly that tactic.
Are these coordinated efforts humanitarian and moral issues?
Do not kid yourself.
The drug cartels and human traffickers consider this staged distraction a bonus for their evil businesses. Neither they nor the leftists organizing these mobs care about who will be hurt or pay the price (social, cultural and economic), for this invasion.
The preposterous assertion that our immigration system is not “fair” because we do not allow unregulated migration from anywhere to the U.S. is an insult to the tens of millions of people who (my grandfather included) waited years in line overseas in order to immigrate to America legally.
Another View is a weekly column written collaboratively by Dale Landrith of Camden, Ken Frederic of Bristol, Paul Ackerman of Martinsville, Jan Dolcater of Rockport and Ralph “Doc” Wallace of Rockport.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
