Sorry about the title of this piece, but that’s what happens when you follow the insane thought processes of Liberals, the Liberal in question being Hillary Clinton, who is enjoying her last few months in the spotlight by telling American people who they are not.
Telling American people who they are not has become increasingly popular in recent years, partly because defining them positively may be divisive, unless one adheres to the blandest and most abstract definitions, e.g. people who believe in "freedom," human rights, and the "American dream." This is about as meaningful as saying "people who like the wind in their hair, the sun on their backs, and a whiter than white smile."
In one of her latest twitter comments, Clinton has been a little bit more precise than that, venturing the opinion that Americans are definitely not people who slam doors on refugees:
Also note how Clinton tries to evoke a little bit of FDR's "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" schtick, with her lead-in comment about "our values" being stronger than "fear."
Yes real Americans are definitely not people who fear, unless, of course you want to brew up a "cuck war" that serves Israeli interests, like the invasion of Iraq, in which case they panic – with the help of the media cheerleaders (fear leaders?) and the political establishment. Hillary was all behind "fear" of imaginary objects back in 2003, when Iraq was being discussed, as she is now with regard to Iran, one of the saner countries in the Middle East, and one which hasn’t actually attacked any of it neighbours for at least the last 250 years.
This idea that not fearing refugees is a vital part of American identity is of course also extended to immigrants in general, whether legal or illegal, and is just as common in Western Europe as it is in the States:
But in order to achieve that you would have to exclude groups like Mexicans and Muslims, as both these groups are extremely exclusionary, even to people who are quite like themselves.
It is well known that Mexico defends its southern border rigorously against the indios and mestizos from Guatemalea, and the refugees from Syria are simply not welcome in other Arab lands. Ensuring the continuation of such openness would, of necessity, therefore involve limiting incomers to the few groups that have shown a preference for it, namely Northern European Whites.
So, if America is to be defined by its openness to incomers, let it maintain that "proud tradition" by only allowing in those who can be guaranteed to share it.
Telling American people who they are not has become increasingly popular in recent years, partly because defining them positively may be divisive, unless one adheres to the blandest and most abstract definitions, e.g. people who believe in "freedom," human rights, and the "American dream." This is about as meaningful as saying "people who like the wind in their hair, the sun on their backs, and a whiter than white smile."
In one of her latest twitter comments, Clinton has been a little bit more precise than that, venturing the opinion that Americans are definitely not people who slam doors on refugees:
"Our values are stronger than fear. Slamming the door on refugees isn’t who we are."Leaving aside the question of whether you can still be a "refugee" when you are 6,000 miles away from the actual danger zone while your mother and sisters are still there, is this really a deal breaker when it comes to being American? Not if opinion polls are anything to go by:
Also note how Clinton tries to evoke a little bit of FDR's "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" schtick, with her lead-in comment about "our values" being stronger than "fear."
Yes real Americans are definitely not people who fear, unless, of course you want to brew up a "cuck war" that serves Israeli interests, like the invasion of Iraq, in which case they panic – with the help of the media cheerleaders (fear leaders?) and the political establishment. Hillary was all behind "fear" of imaginary objects back in 2003, when Iraq was being discussed, as she is now with regard to Iran, one of the saner countries in the Middle East, and one which hasn’t actually attacked any of it neighbours for at least the last 250 years.
 |
| Needing "openness" is not the same as valuing it. |
- Opposing immigration is not who we are
- Deporting undocumented immigrants is not who we are
- Being worried about becoming a minority is not who we are
- Etc. etc.
"Let us define the essence of our collective being by a characteristic that will ensure we never have any essence."Defining your country, culture, and people by its openness to invasion and colonization by other groups is an obvious contradiction. It would only possibly make sense if you specified that you were only open to other peoples and cultures that would be guaranteed to continue the defining characteristic of openness once they were in your country.
 |
| Immigrants from a "value compatible" nation. |
It is well known that Mexico defends its southern border rigorously against the indios and mestizos from Guatemalea, and the refugees from Syria are simply not welcome in other Arab lands. Ensuring the continuation of such openness would, of necessity, therefore involve limiting incomers to the few groups that have shown a preference for it, namely Northern European Whites.
So, if America is to be defined by its openness to incomers, let it maintain that "proud tradition" by only allowing in those who can be guaranteed to share it.
