Essays

Trump’s Wall and the Lessons of History

great-wall-of-china

Trump’s proposal is not a bad idea — but it is not the best idea

by James Harting

I DO NOT support the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump, for reasons which I have previously listed and which I will not revisit here. Nevertheless, Trump has raised some important issues that deserve further thought and discussion. Prime among these is the need of some way to put an end to the invasion of the United States by millions of non-White “immigrants” who have been flooding across the southern border of the US for the last 40 years. (ILLUSTRATION: The Great Wall of China: Impressive, but in the end it did not keep out the Mongols.)

Trump’s solution to putting an immediate halt to this invasion is for the US to build a wall along the US-Mexican border, to act as impenetrable barrier in the defense of that border.

The use of walls or other physical barriers as a means of defending and delineating national borders is not new. It stretches back to before the Christian era, when the Chinese built the first of series of fortifications to keep the Mongols and other Central Asian tribes from overrunning their borders. Here is a short list of some of the more famous border walls in history:

  • The Great Wall of China
  • Hadrian’s Wall (AD 122) and the Antonine Wall (c. AD 142, both built to keep the northern barbarians out of Roman-occupied Britain)
  • The Maginot Line (c. 1940, to defend France from Germany)
  • The West Wall (also called the “Siegfried Line,” to defend Germany from France)
  • The Atlantic Wall (c. 1944, to defend Europe from the Allies)

A quick examination of the historical record will reveal that all of these walls had the same effect: they more or less worked for a while, and then they failed. In no case did they prove to be the ultimate solution to the problem that they sought to address. In the end, the Mongols did overrun China. The Antonine Wall was abandoned, Hadrian’s Wall was breached, and the barbarians did move south. The Germans invaded France, and later the French and their allies invaded Germany. Other historic examples could be cited — all with the same result.

At the present time, the Israelis have built one wall around the Gaza Strip, and a second wall dividing Israel proper from the Jewish-occupied West Bank territories. But the Gaza wall has not stopped the Palestinians from lobbing mortar rounds and firing missiles over that barrier into Israel. And despite the wall in the West Bank, some 25 Jews have been stabbed to death by Palestinian civilians wielding kitchen knives in recent months. The reality is that, although the walls may help the Israelis a little, what really keeps Israel safe is the will of the Israeli government to defend its people, coupled with the might of the Israeli armed forces. And here we come to the crux of the matter.

But before discussing that, let us take a look at one more example from the historical record: the Peloponnesian War, which was fought between Athens and Sparta, 431-404 BC. Both of these Greek city-states were military superpowers of their time. Athens was defended by fabled walls that surrounded it and that stretched many miles down to the Aegean Sea. Sparta, however, had no walls.

In that connection, the Roman historian Plutarch gives us the following anecdote: When asked why his city was not defended by walls, the Spartan King Agesilaus pointed to his soldiers and said, “These are Sparta’s walls.”

In the end, Sparta won its war against Athens, and ordered the Athenians to tear down their famed walls.

So, what lessons for today can we draw from the historical record?

The first is that relying on walls to defend a national border is at best a temporary and incomplete solution to the problem. The second is that walls or other physical barriers are not adequate substitutes for military power. And thirdly, that if the Will to defend a country from invasion is lacking, then simply erecting a physical barrier will not get the job done.

THE RUINS OF HADRIAN’S WALL: When Romans lost the will to defend their border, it proved useless.
The Ruins of Hadrian’s Wall: When Romans lost the will to defend their border, it proved useless.

In regard to Trump’s proposal to build a wall on the border between US and Mexico, we should consider the following:

The first step in addressing any problem is to define it clearly and correctly. Trump has not done this: he claims that the problem is the infestation of the US by illegal aliens. But that is not really the issue: rather, the problem is the invasion of the US by non-White aliens. Whether they cross the border “legally” or “illegally” is not the issue: rather, their race is the issue.

Building a wall is not, in itself, a bad idea — but that alone would be insufficient to seal the border. There will always be ways to defeat such a barrier, especially if the Will of those who want to cross the border is stronger than the Will of those who seek to keep them out. Indeed, in areas where the physical border is already well-defended by a wall, those wishing to sneak across the border dig tunnels, use ladders or bribe public officials. And in they come.

Instead of relying on a wall, we should, in the manner of the ancient Spartans, rely on our armed forces. Let us be realistic and call this problem by its proper name: what the media and the politicians refer to euphemistically as “migration,” “immigration” or a “refugee crisis” is, in fact, an invasion. The correct response to an invasion is for the country being invaded to employ defensive armed force. We should militarize the US-Mexican border, and station well-trained troops along its length. These forces should be armed with live ammunition and be in possession of rules of engagement that allow them to use that ammunition when necessary. A few bursts of machine gun fire headed in a southerly direction, and they will stop coming in.

Sealing the border itself will not solve the immigration crisis. There would remain the problem of the 10 to 20 million non-White illegals already in the US, as well as the parallel problem of a greater number of non-White invaders who are here legally. All of these will have to go. But closing the border is the first step in restoring America’s racial sovereignty.

Trump’s proposal to effectively seal the US-Mexican border against any and all infiltration has clearly struck a resonant note among White Americans. We commend him for bringing this issue to the forefront of the national debate on immigration. But in the end, militarizing the border by stationing troops there will prove many times over more effective than building a wall.

And beyond that, we reiterate, as with all racial problems we face, the prerequisite for any solution is the Will to implement that solution. If the Will is lacking, then no solution will work. The border could be sealed today — TODAY! — if the ruling elites had the Will to do so. But they do not, because the destruction of America as a White country is exactly what they desire.

* * *

Source: Do Right and Fear No One

For Further Reading

Previous post

Misrepresentation of German Bombing Victims as Jewish Holocaust Victims by the World Jewish Congress

Next post

Ravens Capable of Imagining Being Spied On

6 Comments

  1. WHITE_WARRIOR
    February 2, 2016 at 2:41 pm — Reply

    I have often said that we do not have a Jewish problem or a Negro problem or a Mestizo problem but rather we have a white problem. This remark often annoys many white nationalists. They get annoyed because they – in my opinion – miss the subtlety of my remark.

    White revolution begins with each white man and white women, then within the family, then the community and finally the nation.

    The white problem I speak about is one of white self-esteem. And there are many reasons why white self-esteem is at an all-time low, but I have noticed a change, a slight but perceptible increase in white self-esteem of late.

    When the bulk of our people regain their racial self-esteem all the other problems will disappear overnight – literally. Really it is that simple – but getting there is the hard part. So let me start the proverbial ball rolling.

    I am a white man and I am very proud of my white heritage.
    I am of Western European descent and I am very proud of the fact.
    I have fathered white children and I am very proud of the fact.
    I am a racist and a sexist and I am proud of the fact.

    I do not and I will not apologize for any of the above – never – not in a million years.

    • NR
      February 2, 2016 at 3:46 pm — Reply

      I never understood why Europeans, or anyone else for that matter, need to be pc. Is it the desperate urge to align oneself with group-think? Is it authoritarianism? Is it fear, or lack of discipline, stopping people to pause and think? Being pc certainly has to do with safety within the herd, if you have the taste for that. However, the effects of pc is eroding that safety, as you can see all around you. More sooner than later, pc can not be afforded anymore. There will be a breaking point. The question is whether society can correct itself, or not.

  2. Michael R
    February 2, 2016 at 11:50 pm — Reply

    Why can’t you do both (build a wall as well as put troops along the border)?

    • February 3, 2016 at 12:24 pm — Reply

      Well, certainly you could do both, and that would not be a bad idea, either.

      But here is the bottom line: the US already has an army that could do the job immediately if it were deployed.

      If the political will to seal the border is present, no wall is necessary; if it is absent, no wall will work.

  3. nope
    February 4, 2016 at 11:51 pm — Reply

    Brown and black members of the army would refuse to follow orders and rather ally with the immigrants.

  4. only
    February 9, 2016 at 6:14 pm — Reply

    Only way that would work is secret sterilizations in the 3th world (zika doesn’t seem to really be it).

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.