Why Progressives Don't Want A Secure U.S.

Remember all the hoopla over the illegal immigrant children flooding the southern border from Guatemala and other parts of Central America last year?  How outraged liberals were at the mere suggestion that it was wrong to allow them inside the U.S. en masse. And what goes for mere children, the humanitarian impulses of the liberals are just as active for all the adults, whether educated or not, whether literate or not, whether civil and obedient or not, the nots being in the preponderance of course in the continual movement of illegals into America. And liberal/progressives don’t get too worked up about criminal aliens coming here either…why, it’s unfair to criticize illegals on the basis that they might have a criminal record, because, golly gee, we have a bunch of native-born criminal Americans too, so, gee willickers, it’s wrong to discriminate against non-Americans on that basis. Come on, don’t be a bigot, the university professors and the liberal chattering classes keep stringently shrieking. (Remember when that wide-eyed San Francisco Wiccan witch [mc_name name=’Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)’ chamber=’house’ mcid=’P000197′ ] castigated a reporter for daring to use the term ‘illegal’ instead of the politically correct moniker, ‘undocumented’,  in any discussion about our noble black/brown crypto citizens?)

Like Ann Coulter said, if you have rotten food in your fridge, don’t you dare go out and buy fresh food to replace it…all you’re allowed in the progressive catechism is to buy only more equally rotten food. Otherwise you have failed to ‘check your privilege’ which is the new buzz phrase of global rainbow communist unity that is a fundamental ideological axiom of the progressive Orwellians.

At the psychological root of this kind of communitarian liberal cogitation is the dearly held precept that it’s wrong for native-born Americans to dare to think that citizenship here should confer some special privileges. In the liberal catechism it’s just taken for granted that we are all global citizens, and all the riff-raff, all the teeming masses, particularly in the Southern hemisphere, are really honorary U.S. citizens already, and it’s just mean crypto-fascist conservatives here who rant to maintain an antiquated artificial distinction among the brotherhood and sisterhood and transgenderhood of the global citizenry. In the liberal mind the post-modern American Empire is the analogue of the ancient Roman Empire and, just as Roman citizenship back then was gradually extended from the confines of the city-state of Rome to first include all of the neighbouring cities on the Italian peninsula and then was extended to the provincials inhabiting Gaul, Spain, etc., so likewise must America today extend de facto citizenship to all of the Americas, and then to all the rest of the Third World.  It’s only the decent, humane, communal, communitarian thing to do, bro, and Third World sistah!  By the way, the Roman Empire descended into decadence and barbarism and weakness in step with the broadening of its citizenship base. (Read Edward Gibbon’s ‘Decline and Fall Of The Roman Empire’ for a flavor of how decline manifests itself in little, everyday things, such as fashion. By the late 2nd century A.D. when decline was in full swing fashionable patrician Romans had adopted the uncouth furs and leather jerkins, or bodkins (I get those mixed up), and crude foot clogs of the barbarian immigrants teeming in the Roman streets. The new getups and duds replaced the traditional Roman togas and sandals, etc. in the wardrobes of the affluent, bored, dissolute Roman youth of the day. Just like black underclass hiphop clothes are all the rage for today’s America’s whining whiggers). The price a nation pays for this kind of broadening, of the human psyche, to include all of humanity as part of its nation and national character…well, the price is a transformation in its national character, which is what the left wants. And the right opposes. But both sides agree it is happening.

This delusional or, to be kind, wishful thinking, kind of mentality  was perfectly exemplified in Obama’s statement just after last year’s mid-term elections when he said that, in his mind, he won those elections, the Democrats won.  What he meant, and no reporters or analysts explained his reasoning to the public, was that, ‘in reality’, his side won if you counted all the hypothetical votes of all the dispossessed African-American and Latino and poor white ‘voters’ who didn’t bother to register or vote, but, come on, we know how they felt, they were all after all victims of American internal neo-colonialism (fist bump with Michelle Obama here), so they would have voted 99% Democrat, so by that reckoning Obama has the great juggernaut of the American underclass solidly behind him, and in sheer numbers they swamp Republican supporters. It’s today’s version of Nixon’s ‘silent majority’ justification for his approach to governing. But whereas Nixon’s silent majority were constructive contributors to society Obama’s silent majority are, uhh, not exactly  paragons of prudence and thrift and engines of economic/societal betterment.  Oh, oh, I’m forgetting to check my logico-patriarchal paradigm conceptualizing Obama would say. As a university ‘perfessor’ he’s good with words you know. (Symbolism over substance). Harrumph! So he feels morally justified in thumbing his nose at the actual recorded electoral results, because, (he would sigh), we know about perfidious Republican gerrymandering of Congressional districts, which supposedly disproportionately favors Republicans, and those Republican churls have been suppressing the noble black and brown votes anyway, through voter I.D. laws, etc., so Obama WINS, after all.

By the same token America must pay for its European background old white citizenry and the sordid history of European colonialism that oppressed and exploited the noble black and brown Third Worlders for so long, so, in a progressive program of global reparations they are all honorary U.S. citizens now, and all this fuss over the borders is just so…un-cool. And don’t forget who’s really cool through all this…the Anointed One, Defender of Third Worlders, you know who, your Prez…

(One last observation. Throughout history there has been a trend for failing empires to turn to ‘barbarian’ immigrant ‘outsiders’ to lead the failing empire, in a fit of collective abdication of responsibility by the native erstwhile elites. There are the cases of the slave, or servile, emperors in the late Persian Empire, and Philip the Arab, Roman Emperor around A.D. 250, and many other ‘foreigner’ emperors. The declining Turkish Ottoman empire had its foreign Christian Janissaries when the old elites in Turkey got bored and lazy about their own civic duties and responsibilities. When empires decline they lose faith in traditional bloodlines and mores of behavior, and get tremendously excited by previously foreign or alien elements to revitalize a failing culture. How else can you explain the superstar status conferred on little-known Obama in 2008 and the phenomenon of Obamamania that swept the nation. It was a symptom of a logical, industrious but tired old Anglo-American culture that had lost, and continues to lose, its vitality and raison-d’etre (forgive the Frog) and self-confidence.)

Trending on RedState Video