Is the Wall a Way to Trap Americans?
So for the sake of argument, we at BDSC had a little conversation about a hot topic right now: The Wall. We decided to bounce some ideas around and posit the question of why would someone want to build a wall? And why would someone oppose it? Border security and the problems with immigration are the obvious answers to the question. It's hard to deny the fact that our current immigration system is broken. Those who wish to come to the United States and add value to our nation face some challenges. But on the other hand, you can't deny that some very unscrupulous characters hide in the immigration crowd. So unchecked open borders leaves our nation susceptible to criminals. Combined with other news headlines like gun control, potential food shortages related to population growth, the welfare system, and Russian collusion - we began to wonder about the possibility if the wall has a darker, more sinister reasoning behind it. That's when we came across a conspiracy suggested in, of all places, Facebook Groups. Take it with a grain of salt - but we break down the conspiracy for fun and wonder:
What if building a wall across the southern border is just a way to trap American’s ?
Being philosophical, we see the concept of wall building somewhat of an existential question. One of Jean Paul Sartre’s greatest works is a short story called The Wall. In the fictional account of the Spanish Civil War, a prisoner and stool pigeon named Pablo faces execution in front of a firing squad. To save his own life, he provides authorities with the whereabouts of another person of interest named Ramon. Without revealing the plot twists, his life is spared and Ramon dies. Sartre uses the wall and the choices that the prisoner faces as obvious symbolism for deep existential questions such as the separation of the living and the dead, the rich and the poor, the free and the condemned. Those questions weighed heavy in our minds as we ruminated on the current political climate. The rabbit hole of conspiracy can run miles deep and this one is just like that.
So for the sake of argument, we would like to suggest the following what if? scenario - is a wall on our southern border a way of trapping Americans after our constitutional rights are revoked? Yes, it sounds crazy - but not as crazy as you think. Let’s go back a couple years and remember the concept of Agenda 21. Population growth is a genuine concern today as many scientists fear that the earth just can’t support many more people. So the idea of limiting, even reducing, the earth’s population makes sense even though it’s also pretty dark.
Agenda 21 is a 350-page document proposed by the United Nations as a way of addressing global sustainability. The plan is billed as a way of restructuring the population in an effort to reduce population impact by the year 2030. Skeptics argue that the plan is a threat to property rights and an attempt to create an eco-totalitarian regime. President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development stated that "land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market . . . therefore contributes to social injustice.” Though participation with the agenda is voluntary, economic pressures are applied to force participation.
That's because mitigating population impacts in such a short order of time is not feasible with the current rate of world population growth - hence the need to reduce the population. Such a plan would require the cooperation of every nation on earth - collusion - to achieve the means. Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution states that “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation” with a foreign power, but according to the Daily Republic, "because it is not a treaty, it is not law under Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution". Therefore, a President can act on Agenda 21 without approval. Both Presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush committed federal agencies to support the further acceptance of Agenda 21. So building a wall could be a step towards pushing people into specific territories, a plan set into motion by previous administrations. Trump is simply continuing with the blueprint set out to define the boundaries of where the Grand Architects want us to inhabit.
Once we are confined within the borders, removing any mechanism of resistance would likely follow suit. Right now were seeing a strong push for gun control with all means of defense against a tyrannical government labeled as a means of assault. How soon after a wall is built would the Agenda 21 plan start to unfold? And how soon after would the mice trapped within the maze wake up and raise arms against their oppressors? If they had limited means of defense, other changes could quickly take place with little opposition since the population could not resist. We already have seen Donald Trump institute a Federal ban on bump stocks, the firearm attachments that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire like machine guns. As of right now, gun owners have until late March to turn in or destroy the devices. After that, it will be illegal to possess them under the same federal laws that prohibit machine guns.
Are Democrats Pretending to be Opposed to the Wall?
Our first clue that this all may be a cover is the current democratic stance on the wall – which is in stark contrast to their previous positions. Notable Democrats, including Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and even former President Obama voiced their support for some degree of deportations, immigration reform, or a wall. Why the change now? There are two possible reasons: one possibility is that these people are nothing but political yes-men saying whatever their constituents want to hear at the moment. Puppets spouting whatever they need to in an effort to garner votes. Obama committed $600 Million to border security yet we still have the same problems. This would suggest that a policy of simple apprehension and deportation alone does not work. Watch the videos below:
The second possible reason for the Democratic change of heart when it comes to illegals is that they believe we are stupid enough to forget their previous stances. Unfortunately, most of the sheeple are. By opposing President Trump now, and then later making concessions - the appearance is that they compromised. But their wish all along was for a wall. Call it reverse psychology to get what you want – like if you pretended not to like ice cream to get your parents to make you eat it.
Now just to play devil’s advocate, what possible personal motives could Donald Trump have for wall building? One thing we can think of is the possibility that he has already offered contracts to political supporters. Call this the 9/11 theory where some sort of collusion has occurred and now the President is indebted to a clandestine group who will release everything if he doesn’t comply with their demands. I mean it sounds possible. This is politics after all. Perhaps for campaign support he promised the wall contracts to companies owned by Russian cohorts or big business buddies. Possible sure. But we doubt it. Maybe the theory will have some legs if the wall is built and the contracts are awarded to Russian firms. Then we would start to wonder.
What is Canada’s Role in All This?
No one has suggested a wall between the US and Canada as of yet, so could we turn to Canada for support if our government went haywire? Doubtful. Canada is heading towards socialism and would most likely not be sympathetic. Canada also seemed a bit disgruntled when Trump visited Saudi Arabia when taking office, instead of following the usual tradition established by other Presidents of visiting Canada first. Canadians seem to be mocking the wall proposal as well, taking to Twitter to announce that they were building an ice wall between the US and Canada. Additionally, the Canadian Immigration site crashed when Trump was elected, overwhelmed by people looking to leave the US.
So why would anyone want to build a wall for anything but security? To keep people in. Think about the victims in a mass shooting desperately trying to escape the confines of the building, only to be slaughtered one by one. The issue we have with this conspiracy is:
1) The vastness of the United States. It's huge. It would take a massive police state to control a population of 325 million and growing.
2) We have plenty of coast line, though harder to defend, which allows us to leave -assuming water craft are not stopped from leaving. This did happen with flights post 9/11.
3) Why would anyone want to “escape” from the greatest country on Earth? Sure we are not perfect, but no other country offers the opportunity for social mobility or freedom that we do. The United States has the capability of being a nearly self contained organism, capable of producing nearly every input required to maintain it. We have oil, minerals, food. There is little that we cannot harvest within our own borders.
We have survived government shut downs before: Reagan saw 8 shutdowns which lasted up to 4 days; Bill Clinton saw two shutdowns in 1995 and 1996 that lasted 5 and 21 days; and Barack Obama saw a 16 day shut down in October 2013. We’ll survive this one as well. Mr. President. Stand Strong and Build It.