When author Dinesh D'Souza diagnosed Barack Obama with anti-colonialism, he did so on the basis of Mr. Obama's seemingly inexplicable chip-on-the-shoulder attitude toward the country he himself leads, and his eager attempts to move America down the economic and political ladder toward international mediocrity.  Where others were accusing Obama of being clueless or socialist, D'Souza concluded -- based on Obama's infatuation with his Kenyan roots -- that he was fundamentally an anti-colonialist.

One thing is clear; Mr. Obama denies American Exceptionalism. In fact, he aggressively resists it, preferring the United States to be "one among many."

While there are certainly problems with D'Souza's analysis (Obama can be both socialist and Marxist, anti-colonialist and kleptocrat at the same time) I think his fundamental diagnosis is sound, but not just for Mr. Obama.  The case can be made that the ruling elites in the United States all suffer from a similar malady, and America is quietly being recolonized to suit their whims.

Colonialism involves the settling of new people in a targeted territory, unlike imperialism, which is purely the military domination of a territory.  Colonialism was justified as part of a "civilizing mission."  According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The Spanish conquest of the Americas sparked a theological, political, and ethical debate about the use of military force to acquire control over foreign lands. This debate took place within the framework of a religious discourse that legitimized military conquest as a way to facilitate the conversion and salvation of indigenous peoples.

[...]

According to Uday Mehta, liberal imperialism was the product of the interaction between universalism and developmental history (1999). A core doctrine of liberalism holds that all individuals share a capacity for reason and self-government. The theory of developmental history, however, modifies this universalism with the notion that these capacities only emerge at a certain stage of civilization.

Marx and Lenin would both see colonialism as a stage in the dialectic process toward Communism.

But colonialism is not just a physical thing, a movement of peoples into a territory, but also an attempt to change the thinking and beliefs of an indigenous people to that of the colonizing power.  There is a colonization of the mind as well as the land, and the colonizing power generally sees this as "civilizing" a brutish people.

Concepts of de-colonization are everywhere in the Third World.  For example, Palestinian/Australian/Canadian writer Samah Sabawi argues:

Normalization is the colonization of the mind, whereby the oppressed subject comes to believe that the oppressor's reality is the only "normal" reality that must be subscribed to, and that the oppression is a fact of life that must be coped with.

Americans aren't familiar with this thinking, but it certainly figures prominently overseas.  It is a belief that the West imported pernicious alien ideas to their lands, ideas that must be scrubbed from their collective psyche in an act of de-colonization.  Psychoanalyst Frantz Fanon and philosopher Paulo Freire are examples of promoters of de-colonization of the mind theory.

In this era, who is the "Great Satan" imposing colonialist thinking throughout the world?  Who is accused of gobbling up too much of the world's resources, of living too well, of intervening throughout the world?

To the modern liberal, America was unjust at its founding.  A wretched exploiter from the get-go, the United States has been nothing but a source of evil to the postmodern left. To paraphrase Cato, "Amerigo delende est!"

How does one destroy the world's lone superpower?  One way is through actual physical colonization.

That is precisely what is occurring along our southern border: hordes of colonists are pouring in to settle, and not just in the border states, but throughout the nation.  The political class has at best no will to stop them, and, in fact, many are actively encouraging this invasion, refusing to take any action to stem the tide and enforce existing laws.  This absolute refusal (and it is bipartisan) is baffling to average Americans, and now the "Gang of Eight" is promoting an amnesty of 11 million illegal aliens (which may actually be 22 million and, through chain migration, could wind up at 45 million) in return for what?  Promises of future border security.  We give legal status and a pathway to citizenship in return for promises, much like the "land for peace" deal between Israel and her enemies.  It didn't work for the Israelis.

It's not intended to work; it's intended to change the American People.

If one understands that, one understands much of the modern Progressive left and their Democratic lackeys.  This is the Hegelian Dialectic at work: a thesis meets an anti-thesis to form a synthesis.  The left wants to use immigration as a form of intellectual hybridization, to expunge the more "unpleasant" characteristics of the American public.  They resent this country and resent the people who demand their own way rather than allow the "experts" and the ruling class dominion.  So they want to import an alien people to reduce the stubbornness and independence that have traditionally characterized Americans.

And it makes so much of the liberal agenda understandable: abortion, contraception, feminism, gay marriage, euthanasia, managed health care with death panels.  All are aimed at reducing the number of old-time Americans.  Reducing our usable land through government takeover helps, as do reductions in America's energy usage via "green" energy schemes.  This agenda goes back to Paul Ehrlich and before him to Margaret Sanger and the eugenicists, and ultimately to Thomas Malthus.  But a large part of why they are doing it is to breed Americans for submissiveness.  (Eugenics was the handmaiden of the Progressive era.)

...And, of course, to grant themselves political supremacy.

But it's not just the left who are understandably angry at what America represents.  Many in the Republican Party think likewise.

Fredo Arias-King, former aid to Mexico's President-Emeritus Vicente Fox, had this to say back in 2006:

If mass immigration from Latin America has debatable benefits for the United States as a whole, if a majority of the American people is against it, and if immigrants cannot vote until they become naturalized (which can take years after their arrival), why would nine-tenths of the legislators we spoke with be so keen on increasing immigration?

Before these encounters, I believed that it was a problem of either diffusion of responsibility, "creeping non-decision," or collective rationalization with those legislators, but that was dispelled the more of them we met. Most of them seemed to be aware of the negative or at least doubtful consequences of mass immigration from Latin America, while still advocating mass immigration.

[...]

Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico).

[...]

Also curiously, the Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with "converted" Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms. In that idealized "new" United States, political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general would "go away" after tinkering with the People, who have given lawmakers their privileges but who, like a Sword of Damocles, can also "unfairly" take them away. Hispanics would acquiesce and assist in the "natural progress" of these legislators to remain in power and increase the scope of that power. In this sense, Republicans and Democrats were similar.

So Arias-King believes the Republicans who support "comprehensive immigration reform" are doing so not because of any benefits to the country, but rather to establish a new plebeian class, one politically docile and willing to allow the natural rulers to govern.

In short, they want to establish America as a colony ruled not by a foreign power, but by themselves, the new Tories.

America's revolution has come full circle; we fought for our freedom from London's ruling class only to be colonized from Washington.

The RINO wing of the GOP has always hated the Reagan coalition/Tea Party.  They think of us as green-toothed hillbillies, ignorant fools who are best hidden away from sight.  If they are going to have to justify their divine right of kingship to the public, would it not be better to justify it to Latinos, who do not doubt their right to rule and will not demand accountability?

In short, they see us as stock to be bred for proper characteristics.

And the salons of the elites -- the Ivy League universities, the upper-crust magazines, the businessmen's roundtable groups, and whatnot -- do not fundamentally disagree on their opinions of the average Americans.  They do agree on their vision of a world with weak borders.  Most of them have dealt amicably and prosperously with foreigners, and they hold the idea that borders are an annoyance when doing business.  The global elite think of themselves in those terms, and while they disagree on the pace of change and the extent, they do agree with the fundamental notions of world citizenship trumping petty national concerns.  Patriotism is, to many in the GOP itself, just another word for bigotry.

It should be pointed out that history shows the power of immigration to change the social fabric of this nation.  The Progressive Era started with changes in immigration patterns.  According to Rutgers's Eagleton Institute of Politics:

Several of the concerns targeted for reform by the Progressives were direct or indirect results of the great wave of immigration and industrialization around the turn of the century. In the single decade from 1900 to 1910, 8.8 million immigrants entered the United States, many of whom came from nations, ethnic groups and religions that contrasted with the traditional dominance of American immigrants from the countries of Western Europe. Immigrants from southeastern Europe provided cheap labor to support the rapid growth of major industrial centers and settled in densely-populated urban enclaves Political parties and bosses used the voting base offered by these immigrants to pursue their own goals, often by aiding immigrant families with practical assistance in jobs, housing or other benefits. The poor housing, sanitation and health care, as well as the extensive exploitation of child labor in both factories and at home, prevalent in most immigrant communities also became a focus for reformers.

It was this new immigration from nations with less experience with Western culture that gave the modern Progressives their empire.

They now want to hold not just an empire but a trust, with no opposition to their will.

America is being invaded not just by Hispanic illegals.  There are overstayed visas, and there are legal immigrants coming in record numbers.  This at a time when the concepts of political correctness and multiculturalism have made America a dirty word and enculturation a sell-out.  This was not by accident; the left created these concepts to weaken the traditional American culture.

Meanwhile, despite the Progressive love for nation-building, nothing has been done to fix the real problem, which lies in the socialism of Latin America.  The poverty south of our border forces decent people to wander the Earth in search of sustenance, and we allow it to happen.  We are enablers, as surely as a co-dependent enables an alcoholic to remain drunk.  There is nothing kind or decent in our policies toward immigration; if we would stop taking their "problem," these nations would be forced to reform, to rebuild their economies along free-market principles.  But we are allowing sores to fester and are instead spending astronomical sums of money to fix "our" problem, which is really a Progressive desire to impose soft socialism here and abroad.  And many of our own people go along with this because it provides cheap labor.  Cheap labor is not always a bargain.

Immigration can be a beneficial and moral thing, and it has been an asset to our nation.  Unfortunately, this isn't immigration so much as colonization.  Mr. Obama, with his intimate knowledge of colonialism and decolonization, is fully aware of what is happening and is, in fact, fostering it.  This is his way of decolonizing the rest of the world, of bringing America in line with the international order and in handing the imperium to his Progressive friends.

Friends like Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Karl Rove, and the rest of the Tory Lord-wannabes.

When the American colonies won their freedom, it was feared we had traded George III for George I.  History proved that assertion wrong -- then.  We are in the process of doing precisely that now, of recolonializing America.  We are becoming strangers in our own land.

Nations can and do die from immigration; Lebanon is a great example.  It still exists, but it is no longer the prosperous and peaceful heterogeneous land it once was.  Palestinian refugees have turned it into another Islamic hell-hole.  Looking back in history, we see countless nations that have been replaced by others.  The Bible mentions a number of Canaanite peoples who are now extinct.  Surely we can ask what happened to many of the native tribes in North America.  While a nation called the United States will continue to appear on a map (if it is not partitioned first or subsumed into a North American Union), it will bear little resemblance to the nation we knew.  That is the fate of colonial territories.

Read more from Tim and friends at www.tbirdnow.mee.nu.