And they wonder why Donald Trump is to civic enthusiasm as “The Passion of the Christ” was to movie-going.
An attendee at Donald Trump’s rally in Salem, New Hampshire, questioned Trump about his hardline position on Middle Eastern migrants. Trump has said that, in addition to barring new refugees, he would deport any already in the country. From Business Insider, Feb. 8, 2016, with emphasis added:
“There’s plans in place now to relocate a few Syrian families in the [Greenwich, NH] community,” the man told Trump. “The community has been very open and welcoming of these families. Some of their children are — ages 5, 8, 10, 12 — are planning to go to school there.”
He continued: “I think we all probably know what your general policies are toward refugees. I’m wondering if you would be able to look at these children in the face and tell them that they are not allowed to go to school in the community?”
Trump said he could, in fact, look those children in the face and tell them the US wouldn’t accept them. The Republican front-runner warned that their parents could be aligned with the Islamic State, the terrorist group also known as ISIS.
Trump’s answer—that he would look the migrant children in the eye and tell them that they can’t come here—was principled and right. The explanation he gave, that their parents could be aligned with ISIS, is factually sound but it doesn’t come from first causes. The fundamental answer, one that may have created an unnecessary distraction on the campaign trail, is that the purpose of countries is to secure a future for their own native children.
A response to that Greenwich rally attendee that reframes the compassion fallacy at first causes would look something like this:
I’m wondering if you would be able to look at these White children in the face and tell them that they are not allowed to have a school, or a community, or a future of their own?
Nobody ever asks about American kids, or White kids. Any talk of compassion for White children as such would draw a blank look on the average modern man’s face. Under the globalist world order and in the minds of hate-crazed anti-Whites, our communities and all of our social capital have legitimacy solely in their function of being nourishment for non-Whites.
From the most recent Democratic debate, moderated by a Black woman Gwen Ifill and featuring Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders:
IFILL: Let me turn this on its head, because when we talk about race in this country, we always talk about African-Americans, people of color. I want to talk about white people, OK?
SANDERS: White people?
IFILL: I know. (Laughter)
Hyenas cackling over the lion cubs.
A human being with a healthy moral alignment and a non-cucked worldview sees the world from the perspective of his concentric circles of loyalty, all of them anchored on the axis of his blood lineage. A healthy man makes all practical judgments in accordance with how they serve the well-being of his posterity writ large but delineated by outer limits to keep his generosity from diluting itself in universalism.
What about Christian compassion to others, in the context of asylum-seekers? I mused about the notion of shelter-giving in my post about hospitality, where I wrote something that is apropos here:
A generous humanitarian gesture toward a large numbers of foreigners seeking safety — assuming they are deemed asylum seekers and not non-uniformed invaders — should be a temporary sanctuary in a confined campus, with mandatory return once the hostilities are deemed to have ended. And no possibility of release to integrate with the host state’s population.
In no moral law is it written that asylum for refugees must become an open door to changing the national character of the host country. A good host will feed you and board you, not dispossess his son or give away his daughter for the guest’s sake.
And the above assumes that the refugees are fleeing certain death, rather than coming here “for a better life” at the price of making our children’s lives worse.
It has been pointed out in ironic tones that Donald Trump could pass for a moderate Democrat twenty years ago. That may be true at face value but this glib dismissal also understates Trump’s campaign as an existential threat to the system. The globalist world order—which had kicked into implementation phase with the end of the Cold War—operates on two principles: (1) a perpetual expansion of the economic consumer pool, and (2) White genocide.
A charismatic, independent, national-level political figure that allegedly positions himself as a “moderate Democrat” from 1996 is not a threat to the establishment because he is two-decades’ worth of quibbles behind the program. Rather, he’s a threat to them because he represents a reversal of the present direction of national destinies from a planned blending-out oblivion to a defiant rebirth of nations. (“Destinies” in the plural, because Trump’s national populism will validate the aspirations of White patriots worldwide)
But, but—they say it’s just a few refugees that want to be your neighbors in Greenwich!
The Donald knows.